Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKERS' INCOME TAX (WAGE PAYMENTS)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that some firms are making arrangements to pay their workpeople up to seven days in arrears because of bookkeeping difficulties due to the institution of pay-as-you-earn deductions for Income Tax; and if he will take steps to see that firms genuinely in need of extra staff for this work are assisted to obtain it?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 17th February to the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Colonel Greenwell).

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the recently published survey of family budgets, compiled by the Oxford Institute of Statistics, a copy of which has been sent to him, according to which the food price index of the Oxford Institute of Statistics increased between May, 1940, and June, 1943, by 35 per cent., due to an increase in the cost of unrationed and point-rationed food, whilst the food price index of his Department rose by only 6 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to adjust this discrepancy.

Mr. Bevin: As is stated in the Bulletin this increase of 35 per cent. occurred in the average expenditure on food among the sample of households concerned, and was due to higher expenditure on unrationed or point-rationed foods, and to more liberal purchases of the more expensive kinds of vegetables and fruit, as funds were available. It has, therefore,

no relevance to the cost-of-living index of my Department, which is designed to indicate the change in prices between two dates of items which are, as nearly as possible, identical in quality and amount at both dates. In short, the figure in the Bulletin shows the increase in the amount actually spent and not the increase in the cost of the same things at the two dates.

Mr. Edwards: Does the Minister not think that these official figures give rather a false picture, and that the other figures are nearer the actual cost of living for the normal life that one has a right to expect for working-class people; and will he not consider bringing his figures more into line?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir; the figures I have to issue relate to the change in prices. They do not deal with the standard of living or the cost of living but only the change in prices of the items which are taken into account.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In view of the fact that the Ministry of Labour index is widely quoted as a measurement of what is a basis for wages and so on, if the Minister cannot alter that index can he give us another index which does indicate the real increase in the cost of living?

Mr. Bevin: I think it would be a most unfortunate thing in the middle of a war. We had some of that in the last war. I prefer to wait until things reach their post-war value in money and then take up again the inquiries which were going on when the war broke out.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are accurate for those who abstain from the black market?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that for 20 years this House has tried to get more accurate figures?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, they have suggested that the figures ought to be more accurate, but no one has ever suggested a better method of estimating the change of prices than this index. I have had a good deal of experience with it, and I do not want confusion between measuring the standard of living and measuring the change in prices. They are two entirely different things.

Mr. G. Strauss: As the official figures do not include fruit and vegetables, in which the greatest increases in price have taken place, is it not a fact that these statistics give a more accurate picture than the official figures?

Mr. Bevin: There is a positive danger if we follow the policy of trying to bring down the working class to a fodder basis which I detest. I think that a progressive standard of living is a matter for negotiation, a matter for the trade unions to press on with from year to year.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Reinstatement Refusals (Prosecutions)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the number of employers who have refused to carry out the instructions of National Service officers to reinstate workmen in employment though paying them wages; and how many such employers have been prosecuted for such refusal.

Mr. Bevin: There have been a few cases of this kind but I regret that my statistical information does not enable me to give precise figures.

Mr. Davies: As it would be very interesting if these figures were given, could the right hon. Gentleman not set them out in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Bevin: I must keep down the work on the staff. To send out a questionnaire again, asking for statistical returns on this matter, when we are so short of staff, would be, I think, really unnecessary.

Mr. Tinker: Is there no other way in which this matter can be dealt with?

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. J. McEwen, Glen Owen, Desford, Leicester, was dismissed from his employment by Messrs. Tube Products, Limited, in November, 1942; that the National Service officer decided the man must be reinstated; that the employers refused; that the firm was prosecuted and fined; that reinstatement was offered on unacceptable conditions both to the man and his trade union; that, on the employers' appeal, the National Service officer decided the man could be discharged, so Mr. McEwen has been unemployed since November, 1942;

and what steps he is taking to secure him employment.

Mr. Bevin: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 16th February with regard to this case. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am having inquiries made.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister not think that the Essential Work Order in this case has been very one-sided against the man, and that it is a disgrace that he has been unemployed since November, 1942?

Mr. Bevin: I do not want to go into the merits of the case across the Floor of the House. I do not think that it has been unjust.

Employed Women (Marriage)

Captain Pluģģe: asked the Minister of Labour whether girls between 22 and 30 years of age working in factories are allowed to give up their posts on marriage.

Mr. Bevin: The fact that a woman is about to marry is not ordinarily regarded as justifying her being released from employment covered by an Essential Work Order or work to which she has been directed. She may, however, apply for permission to leave or for the direction to be withdrawn and her case will be considered on its merits. If she is aggrieved by the decision of a National Service Officer she has a right of appeal to a local appeal board.

Captain Pluģģe: In this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the health of the future generation?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, but the future generation do not always follow at a precise date after marriage.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED TRADE (STATE MANAGEMENT)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the nature of the debts and the businesses of the sundry debtors owing £12,886 as shown in the published accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1943, relative to the Carlisle area of the State management districts under his control.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Upwards of 40 per cent. of the item of


£12,886 for sundry debtors in the statement of assets and liabilities as at 31st March, 1943, for the Carlisle State Management District is in respect of supplies of beer from the Carlisle Brewery to the Gretna state management district, the account for which is rendered quarterly: about 43 per cent. of the amount was due from trade customers, such as licensed tenants, clubs, Service messes and canteens, who are generally allowed one month's credit. The balance was in respect of rents accruing due, and the amounts owing by individual customers at hotels and customers with current accounts for wines and spirits.

STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.


—
Carlisle
Gretna
Cromarty Firth
All Districts



£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£


1 Accumulated Profits to 31st March, 1942.
2,011,766

97,856

221,887

2,331,509



2. Profit for year ended 31st March, 1943.
190,604

11,772

27,963

230,339



Total Profits

2,202,370

109,628

249,850

2,561,848


3. Cash transmitted to Exchequer up to 31st March, 1942.
1,748,451

90,343

192,698

2,031,492



4. Cash transmitted to Exchequer for year ended 31st March, 1943.
210,029

25,539

40,608

276,176



Total cash transmitted to Exchequer.

1,958,480

115,882

233,306

2,307,668


5. Balance of accumulated Profits retained in Undertaking.

243,890

6,254

16,544

254,180


Taking the three undertakings as a whole, the accumulated profits exceed the cash remitted to the Exchequer up to 31st March, 1943, by £254,180 and that amount appears in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as at that date under the head IV PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT—Balance of accumulated Profits retained in Undertaking.


In the Gretna State Management District, cash to the amount of £6,254 has been remitted to the Exchequer in excess of the accumulated profits. This position has arisen owing on the one hand to the curtailment during the war of capital expenditure on the improvement of hotels and public houses and on the other hand to the reduction of profits by the writing-down of pastimprovements which have ceased to be of capital value and by the provision of reserves for improvements, repairs and replacements which cannot be effected during the war.


Cash transmitted to the Exchequer in excess of accumulated profits will be available after the war for expenditure on capital assets without increasing the liability to the Exchequer in respect of retained profits.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

War Service Grants

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for India why such a limited scheme of war service grants is applied to Europeans called up for service in India; and will he take steps to ensure that a scheme granting equal facilities is put immediately into operation.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I have been asked to reply. I cannot accept the hon. Member's view that the allowances paid in India to officers' and soldiers' families compare in general disadvantageously with similar grants here. These allowances have been framed

Sir R. Younģ: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total amount of money transmitted to the Treasury from the respective districts under the scheme for State management of the liquor trade since the inception of the Licensing Act, 1921; and what is the significance of the items in the Annual Report, 31st February, 1943, of £6,254 from Gretna as cash remitted to Exchequer in excess of accumulated profits.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

to meet Indian conditions and embody the features both of the United Kingdom dependants' allowances and of the War Service Grants Scheme. While it may be possible to point to cases where the home schemes are more liberal there are others in which the reverse is the case.

Miss Ward: Would it not be a good thing to bring the rates, in general, into balance?

Mr. Butler: I think that my answer dealt with that. This is so much a matter of detail that if the hon. Lady has any point she would like to put to me, I will do my best to explain it to her and discuss it with her.

Canteens (Duty Free Goods)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now been able to come to any arrangements with the Government of India with regard to goods supplied to canteens for use by the Services being free of duty as in the case of American canteens in India.

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend is still awaiting the considered opinion of the Government of India. My hon. Friend may be satisfied that the significance of the issue which she raises is fully appreciated.

Miss Ward: Has not this controversy been raging ever since the outbreak of war; and is it necessary to await the views of the Government of India? Ought it not to be the views of the Army?

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is general complaint on this question of the excessive prices of ordinary necessities like shaving soap, tooth paste and so on? As his right hon. Friend promised to consider this a year ago, is there not something more that he can say to-day?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly put to my right hon. Friend the urgency felt by the House on this matter.

Army Personnel (Welfare)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of his assurance that Commanders-in-Chief, Indian and Far Eastern Command, have adequate powers to secure the comfort and welfare of their troops, this authority is vested in them to spend the money they consider necessary on welfare, to grant compassionate transfers to this country and compassionate leave without reference to any home Department; and will he outline the powers invested in the Commanders-in-Chief which are not so granted in other theatres of war.

Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her by my right hon. Friend on 14th December last. Within the limit of the sanctioned grant the Commander-in-Chief, India, has full discretion as to the expenditure of funds. The Commander-in-Chief has authority to grant applications for compassionate leave from Indian Army personnel. In the case of British Army personnel serving in India, applications for compassionate

transfer are referred to the War Office. The position under the South-East Asia Command is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Miss Ward: Is it not absolutely ridiculous that matters of small detail have to be referred to the Commander-in-Chief, War Office? Would it not be better to trust the Commanders-in-Chief in the South-East Asia Command, and get rid of the tentacles of the War Office?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps they would not agree with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Gandhi (Death and Funeral)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any information respecting the death of Mrs. Gandhi; whether she was in detention at the time; and whether her husband was permitted to attend her funeral.

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have learned with regret of the death on 22nd February of Mrs. Gandhi, at the age of 74. When it occurred she was in detention, in company with Mr. Gandhi. She was receiving all possible medical care and attention, not only from her regular attendants but from those desired by her family, and was able to see her near relatives. No request for her release was received, and the Government of India considered that it would be no act of kindness to her or her family to remove her from the Aga Khan's Palace. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Sorensen: Were not only Mr. Gandhi, but relatives of the deceased lady also allowed to attend?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I have information that the funeral rites took place, at the request of Mr. Gandhi, in the grounds of the Aga Khan's Palace at Poona, and relatives and friends were allowed to be present.

Benģal (Mortality Statistics)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if he has considered the copy sent to him of the survey and report of the Anthropological Department of the University of Calcutta that the total number of deaths above the normal due to famine and disease in Bengal is estimated at 3,500,000; and whether he can make a statement giving his latest information and figures.

Mr. Butler: From the information in my possession, it would appear that the survey and report referred to covered only 816 families, with a total membership of 3,840, spread over eight districts. This would obviously be an inadequate basis for an estimate of mortality over the whole of Bengal. Vital statistical returns for Bengal for 1943 are not yet quite complete. Meanwhile, I cannot add to my right hon. Friend's answer of 20th January.

Mr. Sorensen: Have any steps been taken to point out to the Anthropological Department the alleged inaccuracy of their estimate, in view of the very great difficulty experienced by hon. Members as a result?

Mr. Butler: As I have said, the statistics are not quite complete; but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend, when getting further information for the House, to pay attention to the point raised by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SAFETY (SERVICE MOTOR VEHICLES)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the danger caused by the speed, especially in the London area, of Service motor-cars of all nationalities; and will he instruct the police to take action.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that, so far as the Metropolitan Area is concerned, police observation does not support the suggestion of particularly dangerous speeding by Service drivers. The military authorities are doing all they can to promote the safe driving of Service vehicles, and the police are paying special attention to the question of securing compliance with the speed limits by Service personnel.

Sir W. Smithers: Have the British police power to stop and prosecute drivers of cars belonging to all the Allied Forces?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I understand that that is so, and that, in fact, they do so. In the case of the American Forces, under the United States Visiting Forces Act, they stop the driver, take particulars, and report him to the commanding officer.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the commanding officer take appropriate action?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that he does.

Mr. Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of cars belonging to the Forces, and also of private cars, they go so fast that it is almost impossible for the police to catch the numbers of the cars?

Mr. Morrison: I am advised that generally it is not too bad, but undoubtedly some such instances occur. If there is a police patrol car about, it is capable of going faster.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can my right hon. Friend not solve the whole problem by investigating the number of accidents for military cars and the number for civilian cars, which would show that the military cars are no worse than civilian cars?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that. What it would show I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTOXICATING LIQUOR SALES (YOUNG PERSONS)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the interests of the sobriety of the young, he will make an Order that no person under 21 years of age shall be supplied with alcoholic liquor in a public house; and for its proper working arrange that all minors shall have their ages entered on their identity cards.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Act, 1923, prohibits the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in bars to persons under 18 and also prohibits the treating of such persons. My present information would not justify the extension of this prohibition to persons under 21. On the question of identity cards, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 20th January by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins).

Dr. Little: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling in the country that this matter should be dealt with at once to safeguard the youth of our country from temptation?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the implication in the first part of this Question will be generally resented, particularly by the young men and women in the Forces, between 18 and 21, whose general standard of conduct and sobriety does them the highest credit?

Mr. Morrison: There is a problem here, about which I am doing my best. There is a good deal of exaggeration by people who have, quite legitimately, a cause to further, and it is difficult to make up one's mind how far the evil is widespread. I do not want to make Regulations unless the case for them is reasonably proved.

Oral Answers to Questions — RELEASED DETAINEE (PRISON SENTENCE)

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the reasons why Robin Pinchard, former member of the British Union of Fascists, who was sentenced on 23rd February at Bristol assizes to five years penal servitude for damaging 15 telephones and conspiring to damage others, had previously been released from detention under Regulation 18B after six months.

Mr. H. Morrison: This man was detained under Defence Regulation 18B in January, 1942, on the ground that he had been a member of and active in the furtherance of the objects of the organisation formerly known as British Union, and that it was necessary to exercise control over him. He was heard by the Advisory Committee, and, after consideration of their report and a careful review of all the circumstances of his case, I came to the conclusion in July, 1942, that it was no longer necessary to exercise control over him by detention. I accordingly authorised his release on conditions, with a view to his taking up useful work.

Mr. Mander: Is it not clear from the evidence that this was a political crime, committed to assist the enemy and to endanger the cause of this country?

Mr. Morrison: I think it bears that interpretation—I do not think that is unfair. On the other hand, it may be explainable by the fact that this is a peculiar type of person, who likes to do naughty things to call attention to himself.

Miss Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great number of men, of friendly nationality or status, have been interned for years in the Isle of Man, not for any suspicion of enemy sympathy, but because they have—

Mr. Speaker: That is a general question, which has nothing to do with this matter.

Miss Rathbone: May I call attention to the fact that this is a question as to how far it is legitimate to detain this man in the Isle of Man because—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPANESE NATIONALS (REGISTRATION)

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Japanese subjects registered here when ordered to do so.

Mr. H. Morrison: The requirement that all foreigners resident here shall register with the police has been in force since the last war. Japanese became subject to the alien enemy restrictions in December, 1941, and I do not know of any failures to report to the police on that or any other occasion. The number at present registered is approximately 570, of whom 400 are men.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAIDS (TAXICAB DRIVERS)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the services of the taxicab drivers for five years during air-raids, he will see that they are recommended for rewards.

Mr. H. Morrison: Taxicab drivers, in common with other sections of the community, have acquitted themselves well under air raids, but as far as recognition of their services is concerned, it would, I fear, be impossible to discriminate between them and other sections of the community which have been no less deserving.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRES (NOTIFICATION)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can take steps to improve the system of communications for reporting fires.

Mr. H. Morrison: A carefully-prepared communications system is in operation for reporting fires, whether due to enemy action or not. These arrangements are under constant review in the light of experience. I am always glad to receive suggestions for their further improvement.

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the safeguards which were proper and necessary at the beginning of the war, to prevent dispersal of effort, have become less necessary now, in view of the greater experience of the wardens' and other services; and will he see whether it is possible to simplify the procedure in order to achieve greater speed?

Mr. Morrison: I am not clear what the hon. Member's suggestions are, but if he will let me have particulars of them, I will gladly consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far the number of allegations of corrupt practices in municipal administration has increased since the abandonment of elections of municipal councillors.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not know what is the basis for the suggestion in my hon. Friend's Question that there has been an increase in allegations of corrupt practices in municipal administration during the war. In any case, however, I have no reason to think that the suspension of municipal elections has had any significance in this connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCTORS AND NURSES (NORTHERN IRELAND, TRAVEL PERMITS).

Dr Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue instructions to passport officials to give special consideration to doctors and nurses crossing to and from Northern Ireland, with a view to the speedy issue of their travel permits.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of no grounds for any complaint of delay in granting exit permits to doctors and nurses who qualify for a permit under the travel regulations.

Dr. Little: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the serious complaints about the delays made in the case of doctors who are in a position to cross the Channel, but cannot get permits? Will he look into it?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will certainly do my best to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS' AID SOCIETY, LIVERPOOL

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered a letter from the Liverpool Council of Social Service, dated 23rd February, 1944, concerning his withdrawal of the certificate of efficiency from the Liverpool and Area Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society; what is the nature of his reply; and will he meet a deputation of Members of Parliament from the Liverpool area to discuss the present unsatisfactory situation in relation to this matter owing to there having been no adequate inquiry before the withdrawal of the certificate and the setting up of another similar body.

Mr. H. Morrison: As to the circumstances in which the certificate of efficiency of this society was withdrawn I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 24th February last to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Brown). Having regard to the history of this society during the past two years, I cannot accept the suggestion that there was no adequate inquiry before the withdrawal of the certificate. I am, of course, willing to meet any Member of Parliament who wishes to make verbal representations to me, but the position was carefully considered before my decision was taken and it would not be right for me to encourage expectation of a reversal of that decision.

Mr. Kirby: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I say that I am not satisfied, and beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDERS

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give particulars of


the present position of the inhabitants of the Channel Islands as regards food, fuel and clothing supplies; and whether any further steps can be taken to secure controlled relief for them through the International Red Cross.

Mr. H. Morrison: Such information as is available indicates that, while there is a shortage of essential supplies, as compared with this country, the deficiencies have not been such as to impair the general health of the inhabitants. That we cannot share our supplies with our fellow countrymen in the Islands must be a matter of deep regret to all of us, and the question of finding any method of helping the Islands has received, and will continue to receive, close attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE ("WORLD REVIEW" ARTICLE)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the attack upon the administration of English prisons published in "World Review," a copy of which has been sent to him; and what steps he proposes to take by action in the courts or otherwise to vindicate the character of the warders and other officers of His Majesty's prisons.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am satisfied that the article in question is a malicious and deliberately untruthful attack on the prison administration in general and on the prison officers in particular. From internal evidence, it would appear that the article was written by a man who has had 10 convictions, including five for obtaining money or goods by false pretences. The editor of the "World Review" tells me that, in printing the article, he had no intention of associating himself with the views of his contributor, and that he regrets the appearance of any mis-statement reflecting upon the prison officers or the prison administration. In the circumstances, I do not think that any further action on my part is called for.

Mr. Brown: Will the Home Secretary consider the possibility of increasing the number of these convictions to 11?

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the Minister see that the editor of this review publishes in a forthcoming issue a disclaimer of the allegation?

Mr. Morrison: I will do my best; but I must say that the editor, in consultations that my officers had with him, has been very reasonable and sensible about it. I will do what I can on that point.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the character of the warders and other officers of our prisons is of the highest integrity, and that they carry out a most difficult task most efficiently?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, with very few exceptions, that is true.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the Minister agree that, although the character of the officers is beyond question, they often have to impose Regulations which need looking into?

Mr. Morrison: As the Regulations are mine, I must presume they are all right, though they may be capable of improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION RATE

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Education (1) if he will state the amount of rate levied for elementary and secondary education in each of the administrative counties of England and Wales for 1943;
(2) whether he will state the amounts from the proceeds of a 1d. rate levied for elementary and secondary education purposes in each of the administrative counties of England and Wales for 1943.

Mr. Butler: The answer to these Questions is contained in a tabular statement, which I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following table gives (a) the estimated rates as furnished to the Board by the county local education authorities at the beginning of the current financial year. They relate to all education services and not only to those within the purview of the Board. They do not take account of the block grant under the Local Government Act, 1929, which is applicable to local government services generally and is not allocated to particular services; (b) the estimated product of a 1d. rate for elementary and for higher education for the year 1943–44 for each administrative county in England and Wales. Figures of the actual product are not yet available.

L.E.A.
Estimated rate in the £ to be levied in 1943–44.
Product of 1d rate (estimated).


Elementary Education.
Higher Education.
Elementary Education.
Higher Education.


ENGLAND
s.
d.
s.
d.
£
£


Bedfordshire
3
4·2

8·31
2,460
7,035


Berkshire
2
2·03

6·6
5,552
7,564


Buckinghamshire
2
4·72

7·71
8,890
10,132


Cambridgeshire
5
2·12

11·26
1,062
3,902


Isle of Ely
4
5·4
1
9
1,208
1,208


Cheshire
2
4·7

9·32
16,881
20,366


Cornwall
3
0·02

11·29
5,233
6,293


Isles of Scilly
3
2

3·32
22
22


Cumberland
4
2·5
1
6·4
2,834
3,697


Derbyshire
3
7·5
1
2·9
10,148
13,262


Devonshire
2
11·71

10·68
10,221
13,027


Dorsetshire
2
9·5

10·25
3,577
7,262


Durham
4
10
1
6·5
10,933
14,245


Essex
3
2

9·5
21,850
39,465


Gloucestershire
2
10·5
1
4·81
6,199
8,119


Hampshire
3
1·5

6·4
12,457
16,057


Isle of Wight
2
7·25

6·5
1,957
2,487


Herefordshire
4
4

9
1,508
2,458


Hertfordshire
2
5·23

7·32
17,492
18,022


Huntingdonshire
3
9·5
1
6·2
1,026
1,026


Kent
3
1·59
1
2·22
20,140
40,019


Lancashire
3
3·25
1
1·25
23,812
45,556


Leicestershire
4
0·3
1
4·73
5,426
6,266


Lincs. Holland
4
3·5
1
4
900
1,400


Lincs. Kesteven
3
2·77
1
1·74
2,158
2,158


Lincs. Lindsey
3
8·59
1
4·48
5,014
5,014


Middlesex
2
4·72

10·04
34,022
84,282


Norfolk
4
4·72
1
0·94
4,525
5,019


Northamptonshire
3
2·28

10·61
4,025
4,960


Soke of Peterborough
3
9·3

8·8
137
1,497


Northumberland
3
11

8
7,418
9,036


Nottinghamshire
3
7·24
1
1·42
8,292
10,377


Oxfordshire
3
6·8
1
0·2
2,685
3,130


Rutland
3
1·1

6·2
448
448


Shropshire
3
5
1
5·5
4,086
5,276


Somerset
3
0

10
8,954
11,004


Staffordshire
4
0·5
1
1·59
8,692
13,140


Suffolk East
4
2·97

9·24
2,880
3,660


Suffolk West
3
9·07
8·39
1,461
1,911


Surrey
1
11·97

6·89
42,366
53,569


Sussex, East
2
1·47

5·65
6,525
11,599


Sussex, West
1
11

5·04
7,200
10,400


Warwickshire
2
8·8

9·6
7,612
11,509


Westmorland
3
0·92
1
3·41
1,218
1,738


Wiltshire
2
10·41

11·16
5,415
8,075


Worcestershire
3
4
1
0
5,852
7,432


Yorks, East Riding
3
4·25

9
2,871
3,721


Yorks, North Riding
3
3
1
0·25
6,025
7,594


Yorks, West Riding
4
9
1
6·73
21,472
30,487


London
1
8·96

7·11
227,000
227,000


WALES.








Anglesey
5
3·5
2
8
692
692


Breconshire
5
4·5
2
3·3
1,122
1,122


Caernarvonshire
4
5·5
1
7·75
2,502
2,502


Cardiganshire
5
5·8
2
5·4
695
695


Carmarthenshire
8
3
2
5
1,266
2,166


Denbighshire
4
3·75
1
10
2,626
3,256


Flintshire
3
5·02
1
7·36
2,937
2,937


Glamorgan
7
1·36
3
1·1
5,960
11,025


Merionethshire
4
7
2
7
740
740


Monmouthshire
5
11·25
2
11
3,559
4,360


Montgomeryshire
5
10·3
2
6·5
679
679


Pembrokeshire
5
9·5
2
9·25
920
1,092


Radnorshire
2
6·41

11·16
812
812

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNMENT CAMPS, ISLE OF MAN

Sir Irvinģ Albery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the internee camps in the Isle of Man have recently been closed; and whether he has considered the desirability of removing the majority of internees to camps in Port Erin.

Mr. H. Morrison: No internment camps in the Isle of Man have been closed for some time, but the position is kept under constant review. As regards the second part of the Question, the suggestion that the majority of internees should be transferred to the camps in Port Erin has been considered, but in present circumstances is not practicable.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the retention of all these camps does not involve some waste of public funds and of man-power, in view of the large numbers of internees who have been released?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. We have effected economies as the numbers have been reduced, and, within the limits of practicability, I think these considerations are fully met.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Tuberculosis (Treatment Allowances)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the progress made under the scheme for payment of treatment allowances to persons suffering from tuberculosis under the scheme introduced in Memorandum 266/T in April, 1943; and if he is now in a position to extend the benefits of the scheme beyond the narrow limits then laid down.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): Arrangements for the payment of treatment allowances under the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers have been made by all county councils and all county borough councils. As my hon. Friend is aware, the special arrangements for meeting the cost of these allowances from the Exchequer were introduced as a war-time measure on the ground of the importance, from the point of view of the war effort, of dealing with certain cases of tuberculosis, and the arrangements which have been made cover such cases. Where this consideration does not apply, the

question of amending existing provision for maintenance is being considered as part of the arrangements for social insurance.

National Health Service Officers (Recruitment)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the need for an increased number of doctors and other trained persons to carry out the proposed National Health Service, he will consult with the appropriate Departments with a view to promoting a plan whereby suitable young men and women, when they leave the military forces, will be given financial help to enable them to qualify for this work.

Mr. Willink: The Committee on Further Education and Training, under the Chairmanship of Lord Hankey, is considering the whole field of recruitment into the various professions after the war, especially from the Services. I have submitted evidence to that Committee showing the probable needs of the services dealt with by my Department—including the new Health Service. Financial assistance will be available to suitable applicants under new Further Education and Training scheme.

Sir Ian Fraser: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the position in some publication, that would be of help to people in the Services? It will encourage them if they know we are thinking about their future.

Mr. Willink: I shall certainly get in touch with the Committee on those lines.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is the Minister aware that there are far too many doctors on the medical register already?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONS)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Malton Rural and Urban District Councils are being requested to pay superannuation contributions and a transfer value in respect of his previous appointment with other local authorities on account of their employment of a temporary resident engineer in connection with their sewage disposal scheme; whether these councils have received any


contributions towards the transfer value from the other local authorities who had previously employed this officer; and whether he will introduce amendments to the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, to secure that local authorities may not be forced to pay superannuation contributions and transfer values in respect of employment for which they were not responsible.

Mr. Willink: I am not aware of all the material facts in this case, though my hon. Friend was good enough to make my predecessor acquainted with the position as stated in the first part of the Question. I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation to amend the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, in regard to either of the matters referred to in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister consider this hardship on local authorities and see whether he cannot do something, otherwise than by legislation?

Mr. Willink: It is a very complicated matter, and perhaps the hon. Member will see me about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Water and Seweraģe Services

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on his discussions with local authorities about the need for extended water supply and sewerage services in rural areas.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 10th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and to my references in the recent Debate on the Anglesey County Council (Water, etc.) Bill to proposed legislation for the improvement of rural water supply and sewerage, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Sir P. Hurd: Is it not a fact that discussions have taken place since this statement; and is the Minister aware that local authorities generally are showing a keen interest in a vigorous, progressive policy in this matter?

Mr. Willink: No discussions have taken place since my last statement. It is certainly the case that local authorities are keenly interested in the matter.

Local Surveys

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Health whether he will instruct local authorities to carry out periodical reviews of housing facilities in their district; and whether he will consider giving priority to the dependants of men serving in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Willink: I have no reason to suppose that, with their limited staffs, local authorities generally are not doing all they can to inform themselves of the housing position in their districts. I shall, however, be glad to look into any case which the hon. Member may care to bring to my notice and I should propose when conditions permit to remind local authorities of their duty under Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1936, to carry out periodical inspections of the housing in their districts and to give them advice in the matter. With regard to the last part of the Question, as I have already informed the House, this matter is receiving very careful consideration, but I am not in a position at the moment to make a statement.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall what he said when he was on the back benches regarding the necessity for speed in housing; or has he completely forgotten those speeches?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend reminded me a fortnight ago. I can assure him I have not forgotten.

Mr. Shinwell: Will it surprise the right hon. and learned Gentleman if we continue to remind him?

Shortaģe (Crook and Willington)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the acute shortage of dwelling-houses in the Crook and Willington Urban District Council area and that tenants are now living in houses which are unsafe owing to colliery subsidence; and what does he propose to do in this matter.

Mr. Willink: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I am investigating the matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that on Monday, before I came to the House,


a man informed me that he had been unable to go to work because of the conditions in the house where he lived, and that he did not have any sleep day or night? Is there not something which the Minister could do to help people to get more satisfactory accommodation?

Mr. Willink: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know the facts, and I shall then be able to include this particular case in my investigation.

Central Advisory Committee (Report)

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Minister of Health whether his Housing Sub-Committee have now fully examined the plan submitted to him by Mr. Harold Elliott; and has he any statement to make.

Mr. Willink: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, any comments the Private Enterprise Sub-Committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee wish to make will be contained in their report reviewing all the various proposals, and until their report is received and bas been considered, I am obviously not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Davidson: As this Report was submitted by a building expert in response to a Government appeal, and, having been in the hands of the Minister for a considerable time and having also been examined by the Sub-Committee, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make some statement to this expert, who so readily responded to the appeal?

Mr. Willink: I feel it only right to await the Report of the Sub-Committee in question.

Mr. Davidson: Can I take it that the scheme is receiving full consideration in all its aspects?

Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend will refer to my original answer, he will find that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning to what extent local authorities are dealing with their planning problems through joint committees in coterminous areas; and

what is the scope and method of this co-operation.

The Minister of Town and Country Planninģ (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:-

At present 862 out of 1,396 planning authorities are carrying out their planning duties through 158 joint executive committees, and the number of such commitees is likely to increase. Any two or more local authorities may be formed into a joint committee, either by their own desire or by an order made by me. A joint committee may have conferred upon it all or any of the planning powers of a local authority except the power to borrow money or to levy a rate. Such a committee will be responsible for the preparation of a scheme covering the areas of the constituent local authorities, and for this purpose will normally employ a planning officer, or consultant, who will be in close touch with my Regional Planning Officer for the area. In the preparation of their scheme a joint committee consults each of the constituent authorities and considers their observations before submitting the scheme to me for approval. In addition to the joint committees referred to, an operative scheme may provide for a joint body specially constituted to enforce or to carry into effect the provisions of the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANNUITIES (INCOME TAX)

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship suffered by persons who have purchased annuities by reason of the fact that the annuitant has to pay Income Tax on the full amount of the annuity, although a large portion of it is represented by the return of the annuitant's capital; and will he consider the removal of this injustice in his forthcoming Budget.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am afraid that I cannot see my way to introduce legislation to alter the existing taxation of annuities.

Sir W. Davison: Can my right hon. Friend explain the justification for levying Income Tax on instalments of return


capital; is he aware that annuitants are generally people of very small means who are very heavily hit in this way, and will he give the matter further consideration?

Sir J. Anderson: I know the facts, and can only refer my hon. Friend and the House to the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, which went into the matter in all its aspects very thoroughly indeed in 1920.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

General Sir Georģe Jeffreys: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of the proposed appropriate instrument, Royal Warrant, Order of His Majesty, etc., referred to in Clause 7 (2) of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.

Sir J. Anderson: The detailed application to the Services of the principles of the Pensions (Increase) Bill requires careful working out. I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when I am in a position to announce the final details.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the terms are substantially the same as those announced in his Bill and whether there will be an opportunity on the Bill to discuss the terms for the Services?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The intention is that the terms should be substantially the same; the form may be different but the terms will be substantially the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — "DAILY WORKER" (WAR CORRESPONDENT)

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister whether the decision of the Secretary of State for War not to accredit to the forces now preparing for overseas a correspondent from the "Daily Worker" applies equally to the R.N. and R.A.F.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): rose—

Mr. Thorne: Congratulations upon the right hon. Gentleman's Freedom of Aldershot.

The Prime Minister: I thought my hon. Friend might be referring to Bury St. Edmunds.
The decision to which my hon. Friend refers in this Question was not a decision of the Secretary of State for War, but a decision of His Majesty's Government. The ruling covers all three Services, and there is no intention of changing it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPULATION (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Group-Captain Wriģht: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to announce the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Population and to make any further statement on the technical inquiries associated with it.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will, with the leave of the House, circulate the names of the members in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Royal Commission will meet for the first time to-morrow. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has appointed three Committees to assist the Royal Commission respectively on the statistical, the economic, and the biological and medical aspects of the inquiry. I will also circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members and the terms of reference of these three Committees. The Secretary of the Royal Commission itself and of the three Committees is Mr. N. F. McNicoll, of the Ministry of Health.

Following are the names and terms of reference:

ROYAL COMMISSION ON POPULATION

Terms of Reference

To examine the facts relating to the present population trends in Great Britain; to investigate the causes of these trends and to consider their probable consequences; to consider what measures, if any, should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population; and to make recommendations.

Members

Rt. Hon. Viscount Simon, G.C.S.I., G.C.V.O., O.B.E. (Chairman).

Alexander Morris Carr-Saunders, Esq. (Chairman of Statistical Committee).

Sir Hubert Douglas Henderson, M.B.E. (Chairman of Economics Committee).

Professor Arthur William Mickle Ellis, O. B. E., M.D., F.R.C.P. (Chairman of Biological and Medical Committee).

Mrs. Ethel Cassie, O.B.E., M.D., D.P.H.

The Earl of Cranbrook.

Lady Dollan.

Robert Charles Kirkwood Ensor, Esq.

John Richard Hobhouse, Esq., M.C.

Mrs. Margaret C. Jay.

Mrs. Gwen Longmoor.

Mrs. G. P. Hopkin Morris, O.B.E.

Lady Ogilvie.

Mrs. Helen H. Pawson.

Alfred Roberts, Esq.

William Dunkeld Robieson, Esq., J.P.

STATISTICAL COMMITTEE

Terms of Reference

To formulate for the assistance of the Royal Commission on Population the the statistical particulars necessary for the Commission's inquiry and generally to advise the Commission on the statistical aspects of the inquiry.

Members

A. M. Carr Saunders, Esq., M.A. (Chairman).

V. P. A. Derrick, Esq., F.I.A.

Dr. D. V. Glass, B.Sc., Ph.D.

R. R. Kuczynski, Esq.

J. G. Kyd, Esq., C.B.E., F.F.A., F.R.S.E.

H. Campion, Esq.

A. Reeder, Esq., O.B.E.

Percy Stocks, Esq., M.A., M.D., D.P.H.

F. A. A. Menzler, Esq., B.Sc., F.I.A., M.Inst.T.

G. H. Maddox, Esq., F.I.A.

ECONOMICS COMMITTEE

Terms of Reference

To formulate for the assistance of the Royal Commission on Population the economic factors relevant to the Commission's inquiry and generally to advise the Commission on the economic aspects of the inquiry.

Members

Sir Hubert D. Henderson, M.B.E. (Chairman).

E. C. Ramsbotham, Esq., C.B.E.

Professor Alexander Gray, C.B.E., M.A.

Professor J. R. Hicks, F.B.A.

W. B. Reddaway, Esq.

Mrs. Joan Robinson, M.A.

BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL COMMITTEE

Terms of Reference

To formulate for the assistance of the Royal Commission on Population the biological and medical factors relevant to the Commission's inquiry and generally to advise the Commission on the biological and medical aspects of the inquiry.

Members

Professor A. W. M. Ellis, O.B.E., B.A., M.D., F.R.C.P. (Chairman).

Professor E. D. Adrian, O.M., M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S.

Professor D. Baird, M.D., F.R.C.O.G., B.Sc., D.P.H.

Dr. P. H. F. Bishop, B.A., B.M., B.Ch.

Dr. C. P. Blacker, M.C., M.A., D.M., B.Ch., F.R.C.P.

Eardley L. Holland, Esq., M.D., B.S., F.R.C.S., F.R.C.P., P.R.C.O.G.

Dame Louise McIlroy, D.B.E., M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.C.O.G., D.Sc., LL.D.

Dr. A. S. Parkes, M.A., Ph.D., Sc.D., F.R.S.

E. W. Riches, Esq., M.C., M.B., M.S., F.R.C.S.

Sir Alexander Russell, C.B.E., M.A., M.D., Ch.B., D.P.H., D.T.M.

Percy Stocks, Esq., M.A., M.D., D.P.H.

Dr. J. G. Thwaites, M.B., B.S.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION)

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission or other suitable body to keep under current review the repercussions on existing local authority administration of the schemes for the development of the social services now under consideration or in contemplation; and to make recommendations from time to time as to what alterations in the constitution, powers and responsibilities of local authorities are required to meet the new conditions which may arise.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to Questions on this subject on 22nd September last and to the letter, mentioned in that reply, which my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio addressed to the Association of Municipal Corporations


and County Councils Association. As indicated in that letter, when the Government are considering proposals for a change in a particular service, the effect which that change is likely to have on local government is one of the principal factors to which naturally they give consideration, though that is necessarily not the only one. I do not find any new feature in my hon. Friend's suggestion which would lead me to reconsider the decision conveyed in that letter.

Sir H. Webbe: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is not a danger that the present structure of local government may prove obsolete and inoperative and that we may be back into the bad old days of non-elected, precepting authorities, each pushing its own service without regard to the claims of others?

The Prime Minister: That, I suppose, is one of the many dangers from which we shall be protected by the vigilance of the House of Commons.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister keep in mind that in the bad old days there was a Tory majority in London?

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his attitude on this question; and is he aware that the West Riding County Council are unanimously of the opinion that an inquiry should be held before vital changes are made in the structure of local government administration?

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that not only are associations of local government concerned in this matter, but that there is a very widespread feeling throughout the country concerning the dangers of what is occurring?

The Prime Minister: Opportunities will, no doubt, occur during the present Session, for discussing this matter. Nothing can happen of a large or revolutionary nature in the next few weeks. It is a tendency rather than a desire, and the matter certainly should be ventilated when the ordinary Parliamentary opportunities occur in the House.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Education Bill now before the House makes very definite changes in the structure of local government and is causing great concern, because it may be the forerunner of other measures?

The Prime Minister: I thought that all these cases were being looked at with full deliberation in the House, on their merits.

Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind how desirable it is that men of standing should still continue to serve on local bodies?

The Prime Minister: I think we ought to have all sorts.

Oral Answers to Questions — COALMINING (VOLUNTEERS FROM FORCES)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the coal shortage, he will consider releasing from the Armed Forces serving men, irrespective of their age, who volunteer for work in the coalmines.

The Prime Minister: The procedure for the release of men from the Armed Forces was fully explained to the House in the statement made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power on 22nd February last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge). There is nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. Kirby: Is the Prime Minister aware that men are volunteering for this work, in some cases above the age limit laid down, and they are not allowed by the Services to be transferred to work in the mines?

The Prime Minister: I certainly am not prepared to make additional transfers from the Army at the present time.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister know that there appears to be a kind of fight going on between the Minister of Fuel and Power and the War Office; is he aware that there are scores of miners who appear to be inside the scheme but we cannot get them out of the Services at all, and that it is like being in a puzzle garden?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will not my right hon. Friend consider whether those miners on headquarters staffs who are not on really important military work, should be released?

The Prime Minister: I have asked for instances of miners now within the proper age limits being exclusively employed on headquarters staffs. I will certainly look into any cases of that kind. I do not think


that there is the slightest friction between the Secretary of State for War and the Minister for Fuel and Power. They collaborate entirely, though, naturally, they represent different angles of approach to the pro.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL RESEARCH

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will set up a public relations organisation in his Department in order that industrialists and business men may be informed through the Press and by other means of the results of Government sponsored scientific research and of the extent to which his Department is able to give advice on their research problems.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Before the war the public relations section of this Department carried out an active policy of informing industry and the public of the results of the Department's scientific research, through the general and technical Press, radio, films, exhibitions and lectures. While this part of the Department's work has necessarily had to be considerably reduced during the war, it will be revived as soon as circumstances permit; I can assure the hon. Member that it will form an important part of the post-war activities of the Department.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the amount of the Government grant for medical research; and is it proposed to increase it.

Mr. Attlee: The amount of the grant-in-aid for the work of the Medical Research Council is £215,000 in the current financial year. The proposal to be submitted in the Estimates for 1944–45 is for a grant of £250,000.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consult the proper authorities, as to whether that amount ought not to be very much increased?

Mr. Attlee: I am, of course, in consultation with the proper authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Grant-aided Water Schemes

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the Ministry of Agriculture leaflet, No. 4724, on "Grant Aided Water Schemes," he will consider amending the instructions contained in the leaflet so as to provide for the reclassification of glasshouse property from market garden holdings, which are not eligible for the grant, to a category which is eligible, in view of the necessity for water for these glasshouses for tomato growing.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): The purpose of the Government grants in respect of schemes of water supply is to encourage developments necessary in connection with war-time food production and in particular the ploughing of grassland and the maintenance and increase of milk production. The grants are not intended to assist the provision of water in cases where such provision would, in the absence of war-time conditions and in the ordinary course, be undertaken by the owner. In the circumstances and in view of the shortage of labour and materials I regret that it is not possible to extend the scope of the grant-aided water supply schemes on the lines suggested.

Mr. De la Bère: Has not the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture repeatedly urged on these small growers the need for maximum production? If maximum production is wanted, it must be organised.

Mr. Williams: There is nothing to prevent an owner of glass houses installing the necessary water supply at his own expense. Indeed, the Ministry will gladly help him in providing licences for materials to enable him to get the supply.

Mr. De la Bère: They cannot afford it.

Mr. E. Walkden: Are not the glass house people making far more profit than the farmers?

Young Farmers' Clubs

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to encourage the formation of young farmers' clubs; and what assistance is being given by the war agricultural executive committees to those clubs already in existence.

Mr. Tom Williams: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, my right hon. Friend has set up a joint Advisory Committee to secure the development of the Young Farmers' Club movement. Funds are being made available to provide for the appointment of at least one organiser of clubs in each county in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend has asked County War Agricultural Executive Committees to make available the services of members of their staff to the fullest possible extent, having regard to their duties in connection with the food production campaign.

Mr. Granville: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask if he would suggest to the war agricultural executive committees that they should encourage agricultural workers to join these clubs on a co-operative basis in order to take part in technical discussions as to the future of agriculture?

Mr. Williams: As I happen to be the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, my hon. Friend can rest assured that we are endeavouring to recruit as many farm labourers' sons and daughters as possible.

Waģes

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Agricultural Wages Board in fixing the minimum rate of wages for agricultural workers have taken into consideration the considerable differences in rents as between holders of tied cottages and tenants of other houses and the short time worked by certain classes of farm workers.

Mr. Tom Williams: I have no information as to any particular considerations which the Board take into account but I have no doubt that in the exercise of their responsibilities they give full attention to all aspects of the wages position.

Sir J. Lamb: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he can find these farm workers who are working short hours?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SULPHATHIAZOLE (CIVILIAN SUPPLIES)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent civilian demands

for M and B 760 or Cibazol tablets are now being met.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): I am glad to say that during recent weeks there has been a substantial increase in the supply of sulphathiazole available for civilian use and production should now be adequate to enable all prescriptions to be met. The articles mentioned in the Question are proprietary brands.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that the general practitioners, when they ask the manufacturers for supplies of M and B 760 are told that it is not available to civilian use, but only the old 693 which some people cannot take, and that, in consequence, people are suffering and dying?

Mr. Peat: I have nothing to add to the answer I have just given. It is now available, on a prescription, to everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Exports, Argentine Republic

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal was exported to the Argentine in 1943; and how much is scheduled for this year.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I would refer my noble Friend to the answer which my right hon. and gallant Friend gave to a general question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 25th January.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: In conducting whatever negotiations have to be conducted for the export of coal this year, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the public is hardly likely to approve of the export of any very great quantity of our greatest national asset to a country with whom our political relations are to some extent in dispute?

Mr. Smith: I think I would agree with my Noble Friend on the first part of the Question, but my right hon. and gallant Friend gave an assurance two weeks ago that no coal is exported from this country except what is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Shinwell: But is it really in the national interest that at this stage, having regard to Argentina's pro-Axis intentions, we should export coal to that country in view of the coal situation at home?

Mr. Smith: I can assure the hon. Member that it is in the national interest.

Mr. Shinwell: But who is to determine that it is in the national interest, and how is it to be determined? Are we not to have any reasons as to why it is in the national interest?

Mr. Smith: I can only repeat what my right hon. and gallant Friend said, that no coal would be exported from this country unless it was absolutely vital in the national interest.

Supplies, Brighton and Hove

Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ease the coal distribution holdup which has occurred in Brighton and Hove; and whether residents who have not been able to obtain their February allowances during the month will have them made up in March.

Mr. Tom Smith: My right hon. Friend has arranged for the consignment of additional supplies of coal to the Brighton and Hove area, but in view of the temporarily difficult supply position in this area, arrangements have been made for the delivery of coal on a strict priority basis. Consumers ordering coal will therefore be required to make a declaration of the stocks they hold, and in addition a local restriction will be imposed under the Coal Distribution Order, 1943, providing that no person may acquire coal if he has more than 5 cwts. in stock, or if the delivery would raise his stock above that figure. This restriction will apply to Brighton, Hove, Portslade, Southwick and Shoreham. With regard to the second part of the Question, my right hon. and gallant Friend has repeatedly emphasised that the quantity of coal which may be obtained in a prescribed period is not a ration, and that there can be no question, particularly in view of the present supply and transport position, of making any concession in this direction.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Would my hon. Friend suggest to the Minister that it is of vital national importance that the areas

in England, Scotland and Wales should get coal? Will be suggest that home fuel comes first, and will he divert some of the Argentine coal to some of these areas?

Subsidence

Mr. Daģģar: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is proposed in any Government scheme of post-war reconstruction to give consideration to the plight of those individuals who have already suffered and will continue to suffer considerable loss from subsidence in the mining areas of Great Britain.

Mr. Tom Smith: This question is already being considered by my Ministry, in consultation with the other Departments concerned.

Mr. Daģģar: Are we entitled to anticipate that there will be, in any post-war plan, regard to those individuals?

Mr. Smith: In fulfilment of a promise given some months ago, this is being considered by the Department.

Mr. Daģģar: Can we expect legislation immediately following the reports to which my hon. Friend refers?

Mr. Smith: That would not be a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK RATIONALISATION SCHEME (BRIGHTON AND HOVE)

Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: asked the Minister of Food why the Co-operative Society was not included in the recent Milk Rationalisation Scheme for Brighton and Hove; and whether he is satisfied that the inconvenience caused by this scheme has been justified by the economies so far obtained.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): In answer to the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell) on 22nd June last. In answer to the second part of the Question my right hon. Friend is satisfied that notwithstanding the initial inconvenience necessarily attaching to these schemes, the economies in man-power and transport secured in Brighton and Hove will be not less valuable than in other parts of the country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House the Business for the next series of Sittings?

The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, and to consider Votes A and 1 and Navy Supplementary Estimate in Committee.
Second Sitting Day—Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, 1944. A Debate will take place on Nutrition and Infantile Mortality.
On the Third and Fourth Sittings Days we shall make further progress in Committee on the Education Bill.
During the week we hope that there will be an opportunity for further progress to be made with the India (Attachment of States) Bill [Lords.]

Mr. Greenwood: Arising out of the Business for the Third and Fourth Days of the next series of Sittings, can my right hon. Friend make a statement as to what steps can be taken to speed up progress on the Education Bill?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I have felt—and I think the House has felt—some concern at the fact that we were not making more rapid progress with the Bill. At the same time the Government have been reluctant to impose any form of automatic machinery. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education has had some conversations with all parties interested in the various Amendments and that, as a result, a general understanding has been reached that it would be desirable to arrange a programme in order to complete, if we can, the Committee stage of the Bill before the Easter Recess. I propose that this programme should be circulated to all hon. Members, and I hope it will be accepted as a method of carrying on our Business. There are, of course, precedents for this; we have had voluntary arrangements of this kind before which are, I think, much better than automatic arrangements. I hope the programme will commend itself to the

House and the hon. Members will held us in getting the Committee stage of the Bill before Easter.

Mr. Thorne: If more rapid progress is not made with the Education Bill than is being made now, does the Government intend to introduce the Guillotine?

Mr. Eden: I think that we shall, by this agreement, make progress and get the Committee stage by Easter. I prefer it to any other methods.

Mr. Maxton: Could the Leader of the House give us any indication of the day on which the Government hope to reach the India (Attachment of States) Bill [Lords]? I cannot see any day's Business which we could curtail, in fairness to the persons interested.

Mr. Eden: I am not sure either, but sometimes it happens that the House concludes its Business before the allotted hour, and, if that happened, I should hope to make progress with that Bill, especially after the generally favourable reception which was accorded to the Measure yesterday.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: As regards to-day's Business, would my right hon. Friend consider a further appeal that the question of tanks should not be discussed to-day but that the Government should give a day to it entirely by itself? I think it is the general wish of the House that this very important subject should have a separate day.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it might be more convenient to the House if I answered that Question, instead of the Leader of the House. I have been looking into the question of a Debate on tanks in Secret Session, and I must say that I rather deprecate it at the present moment. I do not quite know how I should be able to keep it in Order. After all, the question of tanks is one more for the Ministry of Supply than the War Office. There is also a Memorandum of the Select Committee from which Members might wish to quote but as this document has not been presented to the House, it would be entirely against the Rules. This makes such a Debate at the present moment a little inconvenient.

Mr. Hammersley: Arising out of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, the


points very much in my mind are first the importance of this Debate and secondly, the fact that having it in circumstances which might lead to the feeling that other normal Army matters were being crowded out would, perhaps, be unfortunate. But could we get some opinion from the Front Bench as to whether they would give a full day on another occasion for a Debate on tanks?

Mr. Eden: The Government's position was that if the House wished to debate the question of tanks, we would not make any difficulty about it and, indeed, would provide facilities. However, in view of what has been said and Ruled by you, Mr. Speaker, it is dear that the matter could not be taken to-day. It is equally clear that some hon. Members want to raise it, so perhaps they will leave it to me to try to find an occasion. I would not like to promise a full day or to say what the occasion would be, but perhaps I could make an occasion before the House rises for Easter.

Mr. Hammersley: As I now understand that the Government have undertaken, if not to provide a full day, to provide an adequate opportunity for tanks to be debated, I will, in those circumstances, not endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend help us with regard to the Business for the next Sitting Day by indicating whether it is hoped that Mr. Speaker will allow us to have a wide Debate on the Pensions Bill, including the Royal Warrant, which is a parallel instrument in the concessions proposed to be made available to officers and men? If not, could he see that the draft Royal Warrant comes to this House, as, otherwise, arrangements might be made final without the House being able to discuss them?

Mr. Eden: I do not think the extent of the Debate is a matter for me; it is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the Leader of the House recall the promise of the Prime Minister some weeks ago that we should have a full day's Debate on war decorations, ribbons and awards to serving men? Is not that Debate long overdue?

Mr. Eden: I am aware of that, but it is in the programme. It is not easy to

fit in all these subjects, but that Debate will take place before long.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the desire expressed in some quarters that the Debate on health services should be postponed for a week beyond the date now contemplated, owing to the intricate nature of the proposals contained in the Ministry of Health White Paper?

Mr. Eden: I have not come to any decision about the actual date at present. I will bear in mind what my Noble Friend has said.

Mr. Granville: In view of the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman that there would be an opportunity to discuss Empire economic co-operation and Dominion affairs, can the Leader of the House say whether such an opportunity will be provided before Easter?

Mr. Eden: I think I can give that undertaking, although I prefer to announce the Business week by week.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend remembers that he promised such a Debate?

Mr. Eden: Very well.

Mr. Shinwell: Do not run away from it.

Mr. Eden: I am not running away from it.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Leader of the House take care not to be guided by the infantile minds of the young Tories behind him?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can my right hon. Friend say what time has been allocated to-day for the discussion of the Amendment on Army pay and allowances in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall)? Further, is he aware that a large number of serving Members desire to take part in that discussion?

Mr. Eden: That is not a matter for me.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REBUILDING)

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Portal to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Select Committee on House of Commons (Rebuilding).—[Earl Winterton.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1944

Order for Committee read.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
In peace-time, when a Service Minister makes his annual appearance at this Box, he does so on the basis of already published Estimates, which set out in detail his proposals for the coming year. It is true that he is called upon to defend his record for the past year, but, in the main, he is occupied with his plans for the future. In war-time he is much more confined. Even of the past he can tell only in part, for the past is inextricably mixed up with the present and future; and neither of the present nor the future can he tell anything which is likely to give the enemy information as to the size, strength and equipment of the forces arrayed against him. Still less can the Minister disclose anything which will give pointers to future operational plans. It is not for him to say when and how the second, third and fourth fronts will open, or to discuss the possible counters to the enemy's secret weapon, if any. It is true that he can, if he likes, venture into a future which is distant enough to have no operational significance, but even here he is likely to run into trouble and to impale himself on one or other horn of a dilemma. If he builds splendid castles in the post-war air, he will be hailed for a short time as a man of imagination and enlightenment, but he must always remember that he may, and probably will, live long enough for the public to compare performance with promise. If, on the other hand, his view of the future pays regard to what is quite likely to be stern reality—if, in other words, he counts the cost of his castles—he is certain to be belaboured in

all quarters, in and out of the House, as a reactionary and a red—no, I beg pardon, a white tape-worm. In the story which I am now to give I must deal, therefore, much more with the past than with the present and future. I shall not altogether neglect the future but I shall watch my step very carefully so as to avoid both of the very pointed horns to which I have just referred. But even of this restricted field, I shall be able to cover only a small part, and I hope therefore that the House will allow me to deal reasonably fully with a limited number of topics, rather than try to hurry quickly over the whole area.
First, as regards military operations. I am afraid that I shall say little that has not already been made public as the actual events have opened, but it may be that, if the story is told continuously, we shall see the pattern in the carpet which is not discernible while it is being unrolled. A year ago the 8th Army, having completed the destruction of the Italian Empire, was about to enter Tunisia from the East. Inside the western boundary of the same French colony, the 1st Army was, with an American Army and a substantial contingent of the liberated French, building up the other jaw of the nutcrackers. At the same time, the Navy and the Air Force were gravely interfering with the supply lines of the German and Italian forces left in Africa and ensuring that military defeat in Africa could be followed by no Dunkirk. Also at the same time plans were being prepared to invade the island possessions of Italy in the Mediterranean as well as the mainland. The occupation of the former was necessary to the full re-establishment of Britain's historic highway to the East, while the latter would open one of the few doors into the Continental stronghold of the Axis.
The brilliant results of the Tunisian campaign are apt to obscure the fact that it was brilliant in itself. Nobody who has been over the ground can have any patience with the armchair strategists who at the time criticised the conduct of the operations, and complained that those responsible for it did not throw armies and air forces about at will. It is not really possible to annihilate time and space in ten lines of print. In June and July I was privileged to see for myself a good deal of the Tunisian battlefield, and


I say that I am filled with admiration for what our armies did, and especially with what was done in that last phase when, after capturing Tunis, they fanned out to join hands with the Americans who had captured Bizerta, to clear the Cap Bon peninsula and to squeeze the last remnants of the Axis forces up against the 8th Army's Enfidaville position. As to the results, probably enough has been said already but I should like to mention four. First, the liberation of Malta from its long and heroically endured ordeal, secondly, the capture of 300,000 Axis prisoners, thirdly, that it was now possible to pass convoys under cover of the African shore to the Middle East and beyond, thus saving in effect millions of tons of shipping and, what is more, a vast amount of time, and fourthly that we now had secure ports and bases all along the North of Africa from which to re-enter the Europe we had been forced to abandon three years earlier
When I was in Africa the first of these expeditions was ready, and I saw a good many of the formations allotted to it a very short time before they were due to embark for Sicily. I wish I could adequately express my admiration at the quiet efficiency with which all these complex arrangements had been made, and even more at the confident bearing and cheerfulness of the troops who were to take part. I remember writing that I had the impression of looking at men who were all seven feet high, and I do not think I can better that description. Anyhow, the Sicilian expedition, unlike its Athenian predecessor, was a complete success. Incidentally, I may perhaps mention that a large part of the population of Syracuse took refuge in those very caves in which Nicias and his men met their miserable end. It was clear from the beginning that the Italian forces would make no effective resistance, and the German forces quickly withdrew to form a very strong position round Etna and the North-East corner of the island. This was ultimately forced and the occupation was completed in 38 days. Some commentators at the time thought this too long, but those of us who have seen even the lower slopes of Etna are not disposed to share this view. Moreover, the view overlooks the fact that nothing has occurred in the Mediterranean theatre to suggest that the German soldier

is not still a most efficient and formidable fighting animal. The invasion of Sicily was the first major operation in which Canadian troops took part though, needless to say, they themselves had wished to be in action much earlier. Their performance in Sicily and Italy has spoken for itself and fully justified the high hopes placed on them.
In the meantime the Mussolini régime had fallen in Rome and it was clear that a continuance of our pressure would very soon knock Italy out of the war. Plans were in hand for landing on the toe and heel and for a considerable expedition to land South of Naples. These plans had to be adjusted to the secret negotiations for an armistice, which was, in fact, concluded on September 3rd. It was not, however, announced till September 8th, the eve of the landing in force at Salerno. The landings further south at Reggio and Taranto led the Germans to withdraw northward, opposing our progress by nothing more than intensive and extremely skilful demolitions. I need not remind the House how the Salerno landing was ultimately made good, after some very anxious moments due to its being made at the extreme limit of shore based fighter cover and to Italian assistance being less than might have been hoped; nor how the other landing forces ultimately joined up to form a line right across Italy. Foggia with its airfields and Naples were soon occupied, but subsequently the determined German resistance, combined with their ruthless destruction of roads, bridges and buildings and, of course, the winter rains and snows, congealed the operations into something very like the positional warfare of 1914–1918. Slow progress in the mountains was made, but nothing dramatic happened until the landing, behind the main German position, at Anzio and Nettuno on 22nd January.
The object of this was obviously to cut the communications with Rome and the north of the German forces engaged with the 5th and 8th Armies and, of course, to capture Rome. A good deal of disappointment has been expressed that a landing which was so prosperous in its beginnings did not lead quickly to decisive results. It is not yet possible to say whether this disappointment, however natural, was justified. It is possible to say that the German High Command reacted to the landing with the utmost


vigour and fury. Forces were gathered from the rest of Italy and beyond, and Hitler gave special orders that the positions were to be held at all costs because a wholly successful defence would have important political results. What these important political results were can easily be guessed.
In the Eastern Mediterranean the surrender of Italy led to no spectacular changes. The obvious venture was the capture of Rhodes, but, with Salerno on the balance, there simply were not the resources for a landing against determined opposition, and the failure of the Italians to diminish that opposition from within made it certain that no improvised expedition would succeed. However, other key islands in the Aegean were hastily occupied and put into a state of defence. But in the end the defence could not be made good and the German hold on the islands is still unshaken.
In the Balkans the Germans were hard put to it to replace the occupying forces previously furnished by the Italians. Both in Greece and in Yugoslavia the guerillas made considerable headway for a time. In the former, that is, in Greece, the Germans have probably re-established their position, but in the latter their hold on the country is still partial and precarious, and Marshal Tito continues to render his own country and the United Nations generally outstanding services.
This is perhaps a suitable place to say a few words about the Russian fighting. A year ago the Soviet forces had turned back the German flood from the Caucasus, but the invader was still 500 miles or more inside the Russian border. To-day we have a very different picture. Though in the south there is a deep salient this is being rapidly reduced. Hitler still clings to the Crimea, it is true, but all the same we are now within measurable distance of seeing Russian soil cleared of the invader. In other words, Hitler is very nearly back where he started from three years ago. Millions of his soldiers have been killed or permanently maimed. The dreams of rapid conquest with which he started are replaced by the certitude of ghastly defeat, and the nation, of which he had made an ideological bogy, has turned into a relentless foe which his master race has real cause to dread.
The hall marks of the Russian battles are a series of carefully prepared and co-ordinated attacks by the Soviet forces at widely separated points and the absence of general strategic reserves on the German side. The German High Command, therefore, have had to move forces rapidly, and at short notice, from one threatened front to another, and, as they could not be strong everywhere, they have had to give ground continuously. Until recently, though they suffered immense losses in men and material, the Germans have managed to avoid the encirclement of any substantial part of their armies. But now it looks as if the master hand of Hitler, which produced the disaster of Stalingrad, is at it again. One feature of the Russian fighting which is perhaps worth mentioning is the enormous German air inferiority, no doubt due to the preoccupation of the High Command with the intensive British and American air attacks on the Fatherland.
I may now come to a brief glance at the Far East. The Arakan campaign of last year was a great disappointment. However, I hope that we have profited from the lesson that to fight the Japanese in Burma the most intensive training in jungle warfare and the most careful logistical—I think that is the new jargon—preparations are necessary. More recent fighting in this theatre shows, I think, that we have so provided. In the Pacific General MacArthur's forces have penetrated the outer ring of Japanese defences. Perhaps it is legitimate to mention with some pride that a considerable part of these forces come from the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand. Further north the U.S. Navy are pursuing their plan of seizing more and more strategic points in the various groups of Pacific islands in order to prepare the way for the assault on the Japanese inner ring. But when all is said at only one point have the Allies impinged on territory which was Japanese before 7th December, 1941.
I have set out as briefly as I can the operational story of the past year. Here is the pattern as I see it. In the West it is easy to see that Germany is bound to be defeated in the end. It is clear that she cannot continue to provide forces to stem the Russian tide, to hold the Allies south of Rome and so keep them away from the airfield from which Southern Germany can be more effectively bombed,


to provide for the anti-aircraft defences of those parts of the Reich which are already subject to heavy bomber attack, to hold down the Balkans and to guard against the possibility of landings based on this island along the whole length of the coast of France, the Low Countries or Scandinavia. Sooner or later she must crack. But at present she is fighting with the utmost resolution, and, except possibly where Hitler's intuitions have been at work, with consummate skill. A good part of the Far Eastern pattern is still covered. But enough has been revealed to show that in the end Japan, too, must perish before the weight of the resources which can be brought against her. I think, perhaps, it would be better if I abandoned my somewhat complicated metaphor and reverted to the one I used a year ago. I said then that we were emerging from the dark forest. Now we have quite definitely emerged, but, though the full light of day shows up clearly the shining city at the end of the road, it also enables us to see that the road is rough and winding and beset with many pitfalls.
There have been a good many re-organisations of Command during the past year, most of them designed to further the process of inter-Allied and inter-Service collaboration. Lord Louis Mountbatten has been appointed Supreme Allied Commander for South-East Asia and operations outside the boundaries of India are no longer under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, India. Under him the land forces are commanded by General Giffard. General Eisenhower has been appointed Supreme Commander for the Allied forces operating from this country, and we look to him to establish and foster here that comradeship and unity of purpose which was the feature of his work in North Africa and Italy. In the Mediterranean he has been succeeded by General Maitland Wilson who, for purposes of better co-ordination, brings with him some of his former responsibilities from Cairo. General Alexander carries the command of all the Allied Armies in Italy, while General Paget takes over the very arduous Middle East Command. At home the Army has been reorganised to provide the greatest possible striking force, with the necessary reserves and base organisation to support it. The latter, and the defence of the Imperial base, are en-

trusted to General Franklyn, and the former, under General Eisenhower's supreme command, to General Montgomery. General Montgomery, with his 8th Army laurels still fresh, finds ready to his hand material finely trained and tempered to make something which shall be even better than the 8th Army. Taking the changes as a whole, I think we can say that all that can be done by integration of command to bring a united mind and will to bear on the enemy has now been done.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Better than the 8th Army?

Sir J. Griģģ: Yes, I said better than the 8th Army.

Dr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman said it, I know. Very unwise.

Sir J. Griģģ: I say it again.

Dr. Thomas: Still more unwise.

Sir J. Griģģ: The House will expect me to say something—indeed a good deal—about the problem or rather the whole congeries of problems of man-power. These fall into two broad classes—those concerned with the size of the Army's allotment and those concerned with the use of the man-power when allotted. About the first class of problem there is, I think, one truth which conditions everything, viz. that this country has probably mobilised its man-power more highly than any other belligerent, and certainly more highly than it did in the last war. Indeed, some people think we have bitten off just a little more than we can chew. I do not think this, but we have certainly bitten off a good deal more than we can chew with comfort. Everybody will remember the facts and figures which the Minister of Labour gave in this House on 23rd September last. They show a truly stupendous effort on the part of this country, but they also show very clearly why no one of the Services can get all the man-power it thinks it needs to perform the tasks allotted to it. I hope that in saying this I am not giving the impression that the Army has any grievance against my right hon. Friend. We certainly have not. Everything that a human being could do to help us he has done. There have naturally been occasions when he could not do all that we asked, but no appeal has been made on which we haven't had some response and nearly always a pretty full response.
As a consequence of the fact that none of the three Services can be fully satisfied there is a constant competition between them for man-power—man-power not only for the actual Fighting Services but also man-power to produce the equipment and weapons those Services require. This competition has, of course, to be settled by the War Cabinet. I said just now that no one of the Services could be satisfied. Personally, I have often thought that the Army has taken third place in these judgments, but I have no doubt that the other Service Ministers would say exactly the same about the Navy or the Air Force.
Anyhow, certain facts are undeniable. In the days of so-called rearmament before the war the Army definitely made a later start than the other two Services. This was, of course, largely due to the prevalence of the view that this country would not need to undertake a large continental commitment, but, be that as it may, some of the consequences of the late start are with us even to-day. For example, it is well known that the Territorial Army at the outbreak of war contained a large number—tens of thousands—of men within the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. These were, of course, embodied but had subsequently to be returned to civil life, with the result that the Army lost a great deal of even what training had been done by September, 1939, and lost a great deal of very fine material into the bargain. Again, there is no doubt that in the early days, when men called up were allowed to opt for the Service of their choice, the then greater glamour of the Navy and Air Force attracted an undue proportion of men of high physique and quality and that the Army took an undue share of the men of lower medical category. Even to-day something like 6 per cent. of our men are of category "C" or are awaiting discharge or are below the minimum age for overseas service. I do not mean to imply that these men are not doing useful work. We do our best to employ them to advantage, but nothing can alter the fact that they have got to be kept out of the fighting line.
Now let us come to the use the Army makes of its ex-hypothesi inadequate allotment. Clearly the very inadequacy of the allotment generates a constant pressure to prune and save, to reduce reserves and to make do with second

bests. In the realm of equipment we are constantly reducing our demands on the Ministry of Supply, and they have indeed in recent months released many tens of thousands of their workpeople. The bulk of the men and women released have gone to increase the resources of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The reason for this is obvious. Though we have passed the peak of our equipment demand, the R.A.F. have not yet reached theirs. Even so, their programme is already employing more workpeople than the Army equipment programme, and I dare say that there are, in fact, as many engaged on making heavy bombers as on the whole Army programme. The main cause of the reduction in the Army demand on the Ministry of Supply is that we have now pretty well completed the job of equipping our forces with their initial establishments and first reserves, and that, by and large, we require to produce for maintenance only. But this is not the whole story. There is going on a continuous study of the scales of initial equipment in the light of battle experience. Then we can from time to time reduce our insurances, for example by reason of the opening of the Mediterranean and so diminish our scales of reserves. Then we are always improving our standards of technical maintenance. And, fourthly, we seek to avoid unnecessarily multiplying new types of weapons of war.
As regards this last, I do not, in the least, mean to say that our weapon policy is allowed to stagnate, or that we never make new or additional calls upon the Ministry of Supply. Quite the opposite, in fact. Research into new devices and projects is going on all the time and many improvements have taken and are taking place. But we do not change merely for the sake of changing; we do so only when there is a definite gain in changing. In one field, the Ministry can expect from us a whole range of new demands, viz., those for the specialised weapons and equipment which will be needed when we transfer our main weight to the war against Japan. The actual size of these must, naturally, be largely conjectural, until we can see clearly the size of the land forces which we can deploy in the Far East. But we are not sitting still in the meantime. A special mission has visited the U.S.A., Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, the Solomons,


India and the battle fronts in Burma in order to make a special study of what is required for the war with Japan and neither our friends nor our enemies have any cause to assume that we propose to sit back as soon as we have finished with Germany. We intend to go on, and we are preparing to go on until that task, too, is finished.
But what the House really wants to be assured of is, I imagine, that we are using our own Army man-power to best advantage. I think I can best deal with this by trying to answer the questions which are most frequently asked in this connection. These questions are, I think, first "Why, after 4½ years of war, is there need for this constant re-shuffling and rearrangement, involving the turning of one sort of soldier into another?" Secondly—"Why is it that, with the very great number of men who are known to be serving in the Army, you are not able to put more divisions into the field?" And thirdly—"Why is so large a part of the man-power of the Army consumed by administrative and technical units?" The first is easier to answer than the other two, and the answer, of course, lies in the constantly changing face of the war as it affects this country. The number of different facets is already considerable. In the beginning, what was very un-euphonically called the "phoney" war, then Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the various Middle East campaigns, the entry of Japan and the consequent entry of the U.S.A. into the war, North Africa, Italy, the preparations for what is miscalled the Second Front, and the developing war in the Far East against Japan. Each of these has in prospect called for changing plans and forecasts, many of them, either currently or in retrospect, have shown up the need for continuously adapting the tactical organisation to the lessons of battle experience. I mention only a few of the more obvious examples—the most interesting one cannot, for obvious reasons, be given—the need for close support for the infantry involving on the one hand the incorporation of heavy mortars in support units and the internal rearrangement of the infantry battalion to provide for manning anti-tank weapons; the growing need for artillery support; the desirability of the closer association of infantry and armour in armoured divi-

sions; the insatiable demand for wheeled transport in all theatres where there have been long lines of communications; and there are lots of others.
This volume of experience has, of necessity, then, led to considerable changes, not only in particular types of unit, but also in the number of each type of unit required to make up the Army as a whole. If there had been an ample supply of manpower, the changing necessities would have been met merely by variations in the constitution of reserves, but, as the contrary is the case, we have had to do a great deal of converting units or disbanding them and re-posting and re-training the individual soldiers. I have, unfortunately, had to take a good many unpleasant decisions of this nature, and I assure the House that it is a very heartrending task. But it is far worse for those who have had to be moved from one arm of the Service to another, and, worse still, for those who have devoted themselves to building up an efficient unit with fine traditions, only to find that either the unit disappears altogether or it is converted into one of a totally different character. There is a tendency historically to assume that decisions of this kind spring from an inherent insensitiveness in the War Office or from lack of foresight. But I have usually, in fact invariably, found that when the reasons for the decisions are explained they are loyally accepted and the disappointment swallowed up in the desire and determination to promote the good of the Army as a whole.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I should like to ask the Minister—this is not criticism in any way, but surely it is rather a point—if a unit requires a new character, why not create a new unit, and not convert, say, a well-trained infantry battalion like the Lancashire Fusiiers from infantry work to anti-aircraft work, when you could create, and are creating, new units to become infantry?

Sir J. Griģģ: I had hoped that I had made that clear. It affects numbers of different types of units, but, in spite of that fact, the number of infantry units has decreased since two or three years ago. However, I cannot deal with that at length now, but I am ready to do so.
All this has an important bearing on the preservation of the regimental system. The traditional ideal was to employ the


great bulk of the men in the Army in their County regiments alongside their neighbours in private life. And this ideal ought to be preserved as far as it is humanly possible to do so. But in this war as in the last breaches in the tradition have been inevitable. Casualties in the field do not fall evenly on all units. Reinforcement pools, therefore, cannot be adjusted in advance to the probable casualty rates and a good deal of what appears to be promiscuous drafting is accordingly inevitable. This is not new. It was common during periods of heavy casualties in the last war, and it was bound to occur in this though, mercifully, casualties have been comparatively light so far. Moreover, there is bound to be unevenness in the number of battalions of different regiments at home and abroad, though we do try to ensure that there is adequate representation of every regiment in active theatres of operations. Thus the geographical identification of men from a particular part of the country with the regiments belonging to their counties has suffered much interference, but, on the other hand, we have tried to interfere as little as possible with the actual regimental traditions.
It is, for example, settled policy that no pre-war units, whether Regular, Territorial or Supplementary Reserve, should be finally disbanded. When we have had to convert them to other arms, they retain their identity by including their own title in their new designation. When it has been necessary to break up a pre-war Territorial unit in order to make men available for other arms, although the men are posted away, the unit is not disbanded but is simply placed in abeyance in order to make it easy to resuscitate it should it be required at any future time. And in re-posting individual soldiers we do our best to fit them into a unit which is associated with their home area. I wish we could do more than we in fact do, so that on this matter, at least, I hope hon. Members will not hesitate to keep the War Office in general, and me in particular, up to scratch.
I said that my second and third questions are harder to answer than the first. This is not at all because there is no answer. It is because the answer cannot be given publicly without giving aid to the enemy. It is quite impossible for me to tell the House how many divisions we

have already disposed against the enemy and what number is ready in this country for future operations or for the provision of reinforcements. Nor can I give enough information as to the general build-up of the Army in order to show the House clearly and in detail the ratio between the men who fight and those who support the fighting line. However, I can give a few facts and figures which I hope may be interesting in themselves and may help to give hon. Members some idea of the general background against which an Army has to be constructed and striking forces created and maintained.
To begin with, before we can arrive at the forces available for expeditions overseas, we are faced with a number of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions calls "disregards." Broadly speaking, about 10 per cent. of the total Army strength at any one time is represented by sick, wounded and men undergoing their initial training. Another considerable block is represented by the static defences of the country, including coast defence, soldiers guarding vital points and the anti-aircraft organisation including, not only the ground anti-aircraft organisation, but soldiers earmarked for anti-aircraft duties on merchant ships. The strength of the anti-aircraft organisation is very much less than it was once intended to be, and I can assure the House that we are continually reviewing it so as to satisfy ourselves that we are not over-insuring. But recent events have shown that a certain caution is necessary in this matter. In the meantime, the employment of A.T.S. in mixed batteries, and of Home Guards to man some of the static defences, have helped very materially in saving manpower. Then we must allow for what I may call the home base, which includes, for example, the R.E.M.E., Ordnance and R.A.S.C. personnel who man the workshops and the supply and store depots, without which the Army in general and the Overseas Armies in particular cannot be fitted up or nourished when fitted up. Taking all three of these categories together, we have to discount our total strength by something like a third before we can embark on the task of creating forces for operations overseas, and even so I have made no allowance for a Home Defence Army or for a holding and reserve organisation out of which the units of the overseas forces can be kept up to strength.
As regards the ratio of administrative to fighting troops, it is obvious that it will vary with the varying local conditions of each particular theatre. But over the whole field, and including the home base, we may take it that getting on for two-thirds of the total strength will be fighting troops and rather more than one-third will be servicing troops. The ratio is certainly heavier on the side of servicing troops than it was in the last war. This is largely a machine war and the machine needs a more elaborate maintenance organisation than the man. It may be a shameful fact, but it is so. Ludicrous as it may sound, I am not sure that the biggest single change in the Army since the last war is not the complete disappearance of the horse, and also the mule. This change has entailed the provision of a multitude of lorries of varying kinds and a consequent demand for maintenance facilities. But, on the other hand, it has stepped up the mobility of the Army out of all knowledge. Moreover, we have greatly increased the fire power of the division, and increased fire power needs not only more supplies but more maintenance troops also. So, to put it briefly, we have a longer tail, but our teeth though rather fewer in proportion are much more formidable.
We are naturally striving constantly to increase the proportion of combatant to non-combatant troops. The manpower stringency makes the utmost economy in administrative units essential. But I am bound to tell the House that I do not foresee any considerable change in the present proportion. All our experience proves that the troops in the fighting line are not too lavishly supplied or maintained in the matter of arms and equipment. Indeed, one of the lessons that is continually coming home to us is that we need more and more transport units. Nevertheless, as I have said, we shall not for a moment lose sight of the overriding importance of getting the greatest possible impact upon the enemy. So, then, I would sum up by saying that it is the War Office's duty to make the best of the share of man-power which is allotted to it; to produce out of that allocation the heaviest weight of fighting troops that it can without starving those troops of their proper maintenance services; to reduce to a minimum the numbers of able-bodied men employed in

non-fighting capacities and on the staffs; and to profit continuously from the lessons learned in the field in the organisation of its formations to meet the changing aspects of war. I do not, of course, claim that we have been or will be perfect or anything like it in this respect, but I do claim that the attitude of the directing staffs to these problems is receptive and progressive, and that the organisation which we are now reaching is that which is best calculated to meet the tremendous tasks which lie before us in completing the defeat of Germany and in re-disposing our forces against the enemy in the Far East.
I should now like to spend a few minutes in saying something about military government in occupied or liberated territories. In its simplest form this is not a recent problem, for the ex-Italian possessions in Africa have been under British military administration for periods of up to three years or more. There are two points to bear in mind in this connection. The first is that in occupied enemy territory the civil administration must of necessity be military because under international law the sole source of legal authority is the commander-in-chief of the occupying forces. The second is that, whether in occupied enemy territory or in liberated allied territory, the primary object of the military administration is to ensure that, so long as military operations are in progress, the needs and vagaries of the civil population do not interfere with military operations or create difficulties for the military commander. So long as operations are going on, therefore, the tasks of the military government staff are to preserve law and order, to eradicate all traces of active enemy agents, to see that the civil population have enough food to support life and to prevent among them epidemic diseases which may spread to the soldiers.
In North Africa the period of military operations has long passed and the administration, though still military in form and law, has been able to turn to a wider range, of problems and, in particular, to undertake beneficent activities. But let me repeat that the problems here are comparatively simple. The population is sparse, there are very few large centres of habitation, life is not at all complicated, and needs are elementary. A European country is a vastly different


business. Nevertheless, the experience of North Africa was of great value in planning for the administration of Sicily and the mainland of Italy. For these the early planning and the subsequent administration was an Anglo-American enterprise, and from all the accounts I have received the collaboration and, indeed, the integration of the staffs belonging to the two countries was about as perfect as anything in this fallible world can be.
Military Government officers went ashore with the first landings and very quickly took charge and issued the necessary proclamations in the name of the Commander-in-Chief. Sicily is, of course, a densely populated island with a number of large cities. There had been a great deal of destruction of works and buildings. The senior officials of the Fascist regime, which had been clamped on the island for 20 years, had either fled or been unceremoniously removed. A.M.G.O.T., therefore, had to work quickly, and it naturally had to make use of minor officials of the old regime, including the carabinieri, to such extent as was necessary to prevent a breakdown. This course has been heavily criticised by some hon. Members opposite, but for the life of me I do not see what else could have been done. Freedom of speech and of the Press was restored but, except for a revival of the Mafia, was not much taken advantage of in the early days. I believe that there is a healthier movement recently and trade union activity has restarted. Schools and hospitals were re-opened, some sort of control of food prices and rationing were introduced, and altogether I go so far as to say that this first example of military government in difficult circumstances was a brilliant success. The executive head of that government was Lord Rennell, and though he is always concerned to emphasise the work of his co-adjutors, both American and British, I am sure that a great part of the credit, both for making the plans and carrying them into effect, must be given to him personally.
Of course, even before the Sicilian campaign opened plans had been made to extend A.M.G.O.T. to the mainland. Here the destruction and chaos were likely to be even greater than in Sicily, but nobody had any doubt that the A.M.G.O.T. organisation would be able to cope with the difficulties however

great they turned out to be. At the same time, plans were being prepared to cover the contingency of a separate armistice with Italy and for a control commission to administer the terms of such an armistice. Plans were also made to delimit the work of A.M.G.O.T. and the control commission and to ensure that they were properly dovetailed. In the event matters did not turn out quite as expected, for the Italians became co-belligerents and a collaborative Italian Government transferred itself to Brindisi. Some parts of southern Italy were left under this Government, in the forward areas A.M.G.O.T. functioned as in Sicily, but the structure of the control commission was found to be not entirely suitable to the changed circumstances. However, all this has now been sorted out. The rearward territories have been transferred back to the Italian Government. A.M.G.O.T. and the control commission are under one management and the structure of each has been adjusted to this fact.
As the territory under A.M.G.O.T. included Naples, it was clear that Italian domestic politics would obtrude themselves upon administration to a much greater extent than in Sicily. Some criticism has been made by hon. Members opposite because A.M.G.O.T. did not busy itself with securing a particular form of Italian Government. But politics are a matter for politically constituted Governments and not for a military administration whose primary purpose is to be an adjunct of military operations. However, in these matters I am content to produce the testimony of Count Sforza, who is somewhat of a labarum to my Mazzinian friends opposite. When the announcement was made of the return of all the country south of Salerno to the Italian Government he warned—naturally, perhaps, considering his general outlook—the extremely able officers at the head of the Control Commission to keep a careful eye on the Badoglio Government. He then went on to pay a flaming tribute to A.M.G.O.T. and said, if I remember the words aright, that in spite of some defects A.M.G.O.T. had been one of the best regimes of occupation ever seen. So much for the past. I repeat that a great deal of the credit is due to Lord Rennell for what seems to me—and to Count Sforza—an outstanding achievement.
As regards the future, plans for the preliminary military administration of Burma as it is reoccupied have been worked out. Those for the other British possessions in the Far East are being worked out. For Europe plans to deal with the various territories to be liberated have been concerted or are being discussed with those concerned—I think I may reasonably say with all those concerned—and a great deal of work has been done on the problems of administering a conquered Germany. A great deal is also being done in training suitable staffs for the work. Then, too, we are studying in close concert with our Allies the wide range of relief problems. Ultimately, of course, these problems will fall largely in the sphere of U.N.R.R.A., but it is pretty clear that in the early stages the relief of civil population will have to be a military obligation. The procurement of supplies in this preliminary period and when and how to hand over to U.N.R.R.A.—all this kind of conundrum is under examination. Of course, one thing is certain, and that is that nothing will work out quite as expected, but that is no reason for not showing forethought. The main hypothesis of any possible preparation has by now become an axiom, viz. that Germany and in her turn Japan, will be thoroughly defeated and the enslaved countries will in consequence be liberated.
I come now to Army education. The broad outlines of our educational activities are by now well known to hon. Members. It is partly compulsory and partly voluntary. The compulsory part is a combination of A.B.C.A. discussions and of lectures, followed by questions and arguments, on a series of booklets under the general title "The British Way and Purpose." I suppose it is fair to describe these activities as an education in what is rather jargonistically called citizenship. The publications are intended to be objective and they have, in my view, succeeded to a very remarkable degree in avoiding partisanship on one side or the other. I know that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) does not take that view; but I disagree with him on that as on a good many other things. There is, however, one aspect in which they have been anything but neutral. These pamphlets have definitely sought to teach

the British soldier the Cromwellian tradition of knowing what he fights for and to love what he knows. And they have certainly made no attempt to conceal from the British soldier that men of his race have played a great and beneficent part in the history of the world and that they themselves and their children have and will have an opportunity of playing at least as great and as beneficent a part in the future.
As regards A.B.C.A., we have been paid the sincerest form of flattery in that the R.A.F., the American forces in this country, the Dominions and to a large extent the Navy have copied our example. The voluntary side of Army Education covers a very wide range of activity and I have no time to do more than give a mere chronicle of them. Music, drama, handicrafts, languages, art, correspondence and technical courses, the countless lectures arranged through the C.A.C. for Adult Education in the Forces and, I almost blush to mention it, basic instruction for that small minority who cannot read and write. The first impact of all this educational work naturally falls upon the Army Educational Corps but the great bulk of it must be carried out by instructors in the units themselves. These have been trained partly by courses at the Army School of Education and partly by the organisation of short courses in Commands. So far as is practicable, Army Education is carried on overseas as well. The limitations, of course, are obvious but they are overcome at times to an astonishing extent. To give one totally unexpected example I am told that it was possible to arrange for the London Matriculation Examination to be held in June at Tripoli.
I have said enough to show how important we think is the current education of the soldier. It will become much more important as we get nearer the time when we can begin to release some men from the Forces to return to civil life. It is not only a question of educating a man while he is retained in the Army; there is also the question of adjusting the training he gets in the Army to what will be made available for him under the auspices of the Minister of Labour after he is released.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can we have an assurance that the soldiers know about it?

Sir J. Griģģ: I think so. I think I can give that assurance quite safely. There have been instances earlier when it was not as well known as it ought to have been, but I think it is all right now. In the scheme of further education announced by my right hon. Friend on 25th March last, explicit provision was made for co-ordination with what the Army is doing before a man's release. And I have no doubt that this will be the case with any other projects the Minister of Labour may have in mind.
Incidentally, the lines of the Army's educational scheme in the demobilization period were laid down in the report of a departmental committee under my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State which contained representatives of the other Services, of the Ministry of Labour, and the Board of Education and also the Chief Education Officer of the L.C.C. Its report was unanimous, and the steps to give effect to it are being worked out. As the House knows, the Army Council has recently appointed a distinguished educationalist, Mr. P. R. Morris, to be Director-General of Army Education. This task will be not only to consolidate and continue what has already been done, but to have everything ready against the arrival of that testing time when men are being re-transformed into civilians—civilians I believe most at any rate of whom will be much better civilians for having made themselves and shown themselves to be extremely good soldiers.

Mr. Bellenģer: Is it possible for the House to be informed in some way or other what conclusions the Departmental Committee have come to? Obviously, it is a matter in which the House and the general public are keenly interested.

Sir J. Griģģ: Yes, Sir. There is an intention of making a general statement about it sometime. It is not quite ready, but that certainly is the intention. It does dovetail into what the Ministry of Labour are doing.
I expect hon. Members will be hoping to hear from me something authoritative about the principles upon which soldiers will be released from the Army when the fighting is done. I am afraid, however, that I am not in a position to say anything new about demobilisation.

This is not very surprising, for the shape of things to come, particularly in the period between the defeat of Germany and the destruction of Japan, has not yet disclosed itself at all clearly. Three things can be said, however. The first is that it is no good thinking that the whole of the Army, or even the greater part of it, can go home as soon as Germany is defeated. Japan will be still in the field, and to a very considerable extent in our field, and we are, in commonsense as well as honour, bound to see that job through too. The second is that, whatever scheme of release is adopted, it must be not only fair but demonstrably fair. The third is that our preparations are sufficiently far advanced that we can guarantee to cope quickly and efficiently with any reasonable scheme of demobilisation. A number of hon. Members were able last September to see something of what we have done in the way of getting machinery ready in advance, and I am pretty sure that in this matter at least they share my confidence in the foresight and administrative competence of the military machine.
This survey would not be complete without some glance at the prospects of the post-war Army. In an examination of this problem there are many incalculable factors. Perhaps the only certainty is that, for many years, we shall be forced, in our own interests and in the interests of world peace, to maintain considerable Armed Forces, and that the land Forces will have to play their part. It may also be taken as certain that the hard core of the Army will be a professional organisation having behind it considerable reserves. But what precise tasks will lie before the Army, whether in the period immediately following a peace or in the years after that, is a question which cannot be answered until we know, for example, the length and nature of the occupation of Europe, the respective tasks assigned to the Royal Air Force and the Army, separately or in combination, the size and location of our overseas garrisons, and many other points. And when we know these things there will still be the question of the mode of producing the considerable reserves which, as I have just said, will be clearly necessary. All these questions, and others, have been under examination in the War Office for a long time, and it will not be for lack


of thought if we fail, in the years after the war, to produce, or rather to maintain, a fighting instrument no less competent than that which we have at present.
It seems to me that one of the first necessities is that the Army of the future should be a profession which attracts the best elements of our population, which offers also an honourable career to all classes of the community, to almost every kind of intellectual training, to the technician and to the scientist alike. These objects cannot be attained unless certain basic elements are present in the Army itself. Advancement in the Service must be open to everyone who applies himself to its study. The monetary rewards must be sufficient, together with the intrinsic interest of the career, to attract a more than ample flow of recruits, whether for the commissioned or non-commissioned ranks. We must never return to the situation as we knew it for the 10 years preceding this war, when every unit in the British Army was short of its peace establishment, and the supply of officers was not merely inadequate in numbers, but in some cases in quality too. What we hope to see is a waiting list for the Army, and it is upon this assumption that in the intervals of running the war we are working at the problem. One matter I might perhaps mention specifically. We are considering carefully how best to associate scientists with the post-war Army. This war has shown how great a part science plays in modern warfare, and we cannot afford not to attract into the military organisation the best scientific knowledge and experience that our country can produce.
I do not think that I ought to occupy the time of the House much longer. I have covered only a few of the topics open to me, and most of those are concerned with the administration and welfare of the Army, rather than with its fighting efficiency. I have said little about the equipment of the Forces for overseas, which has now reached a very high degree of fulfilment. I have said nothing about their training, which is working up to the climax for which everybody is waiting. I have said nothing about that vast Movements organisation which is charged with the work of assembling them and launching them upon their appointed task. I

have said nothing about the growth of airborne forces and co-operation with the Air Force. My confidence is that what has been and is being done in these spheres will best and most assuredly show itself on the bodies of the enemy. This confidence is complete, and it rests upon the faith that this Army, which came out of the great tribulation, is the best we have ever had.
Far too little is said in praise of the British soldier. Fortunately, there will be many opportunities for repairing this neglect in the coming months. The National Savings Campaign of this year is to take the form of a salute to the soldier and I shall seize every opportunity I can to pay verbal tribute to him; but verbal tribute is not enough. There must be a recognition on our part that the soldier's great ordeal is still to come; we must determine, whatever the temptation to ease our efforts, and however much we may wish to beguile ourselves by looking to consolations and even rewards when the fighting is over, that so long as the fighting lasts we will cheerfully undergo every sacrifice that will lighten and support the soldier's sacrifices. The mood which now ought to govern us is finely expressed in Drake's prayer on the morning of the attack on Cadiz in 1587, in a general situation not altogether unlike that in which we find ourselves to-day:
O Lord God, when Thou givest to Thy servants to endeavour any great matter, grant us also to know that it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same until it be thoroughly finished, which yieldeth the true glory.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has given a detailed review of the Armed Forces of the Crown and, generally speaking, he has contented himself with reviewing the factual side of the life of the Army. There were scarcely any frills in his speech, except that now and then he used a new word or two—new, as far as I was concerned. I thought the first one went all right, but when he got to the third one I thought that I should bring a dictionary with me, when next the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Army Estimates. He has given a valuable detailed review, and it is just that kind of speech, opening out discussion of the Army Estimates, which is necessary for the House, when it wants to deal with the business, as well as the human side of the Army.
I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that we too seldom praise the Army. It has been to me a never-ending surprise that we can have millions of men in this country for over four years—ours alone at first, and now representatives of many nations—divorced from their home life, and largely, from ordinary civilian life, and yet with such a fine standard of conduct, on the whole. I have seen criticisms, here and there, of some sections of the Army, but the wonder to me is not that there should be some criticism, but that there should be so little—almost a lack of it—when one thinks of the number of men concerned. I have sometimes wondered whether, without having had the full effect of the increase in school-age, and without the Army educational effort and many humanising influences which were not operating in the last war, it would have been possible, to have had so many men in the country, with so little in the way of incident. When it comes to the men overseas all who have met them try to find language in which to express what they feel of the spirit of these men. I notice they are in the same difficulty as I was when I met the men in North Africa. There is something in the spirit of those men that it is quite impossible to translate to the ordinary citizen of this country. I was amazed to find that they did not seem concerned about themselves, even in the difficult conditions of desert warfare. What they were concerned about was their own people at home, who were generally living in much better circumstances than they were.
There are a good many questions that I should like to ask the Secretary of State, but one or two I would particularly like to ask. These men, as I have said, are cut off from their people, and their people are cut off from them, and it is quite right that this House should very much concern itself about the letters going to and fro between their wives and relatives and the soldiers. Last year we had to complain strongly about this matter. I notice that there are still a number of Questions about it. My experience is that the position is better, but it is a fact that there is a good deal of complaint. What the explanation is of these complaints I cannot say. Some of us know that it is sometimes difficult to reach men in the line, but, allowing for all the difficulties, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the

War Office are doing to meet the difficulties and to improve generally the postal services between people at home and their sons and husbands, because a letter matters a great deal both to the man who is fighting and to his people at home.
Could we also have some detailed explanation as to what really is the position of the miner in the Forces when he wants to get back into the mines? I have had a general statement made to me, but I must say that the statement that we as miners get is rather vague on some points. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the position is? I am sure that the Members of the House will have had pretty much the same sort of experience as I have had. Just before I left home a young man aged about 30 came to see me. He was a good class miner, one of the men who were called up as a Territorial. He wanted to offer his services for the mines. I told him that as far as I knew it was not possible but that he ought to make his application through his Command. But when all is said and done, taking into account the memorandum that has been sent out on this matter, those who know the Army authorities and know the difficulties of dealing with the men in the different grades and categories and arms of the Service, find that the ways of the War Office in reference to the release of miners from the Army pass understanding.
I should like also to ask about another matter that has occurred to me in view of what is imminent. There is a whisper that numbers of medical men for the Services are not quite up to the standard they ought to be. That would be a serious matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement upon that matter? Finally, I want to join with the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the Home Guard for their manning of the anti-aircraft guns and the remarkable aptitude they are showing for the work. I do not think that any of us in our wildest dreams thought that when the Home Guard were established we should ever see them manning the anti-aircraft guns, and that we should almost rely on them and the A.T.S. and the rest for the defence of this country. This House ought to express itself concerning the Home Guard, because men who are engaged in many occupations and services give and have given long hours to their training after the


day's work and after the week's work, and it is really remarkable to note the degree of skill and perfection which they have achieved. When the Home Guard were first established I used to watch rather surreptitiously the drilling here in Westminster Hall. I used to think, "If anyone wants a real example of democracy in action they had better come and see the squad training in Westminster Hall." I used to notice very distinguished Members of this House, and indeed of the other House, being addressed, sometimes by an attendant who was an ex-sergeant, in language which I appreciated and found a good deal of joy in hearing, having undergone the ordeal myself.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Were they in step?

Mr. Lawson: If they were not in step when he had finished with them it would not be possible to make them be in step. There is another question coming on which I cannot deal with here, of course, though I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to it, and that is the question of pay and allowances for the troops. I do not intend to pursue that, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take serious note of the opinions that one knows to be prevalent in the House in practically all parties, and that he takes sufficiently serious note of them to give what we should call a useful decision.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is not for him to tell us when the second or third or fourth front, as he called it, would be opened. Of course, he cannot. I do not call it the second front; I think it would be more approximately true to say the 22nd front than to call it the second front. This Estimate is no ordinary Estimate. It is for men, equipment and stores on a vast scale for what is undoubtedly, as the Prime Minister said, one of the greatest efforts in military history, that the Government are asking the consent of Parliament. We have now arrived at that stage for which the nation has laboured and trained its manhood and its womanhood and for which it has also fought for some years. The right hon. Gentleman gave a rough estimate as to the number of people, men and women, who have been engaged in this great war effort. I should think it is true to say

that in the industrial field and on the fighting field more than half the personnel of this country has been concerned. Before the war there were about 14,000,000 people engaged in industry. I understand from the Ministry of Labour that the figure is now about 23,000,000, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that no nation has made such a complete effort as we have in the use of our manhood and womanhood. It would be true to say that apart from the very old and the very young and the usual few exceptions, practically everybody in this country is engaged either in the industrial or on the military field. For years now they have concentrated all their energies to that one aim of destroying the worst enemy that ever menaced mankind.
When one considers the position of this country to-day compared with what it was four years ago miracles have been worked. It is less than four years since I had in my hand a leaflet dropped upon the Northern moors by German pilots which was headed "My last appeal to reason. By Adolf Hitler." I gathered from that leaflet that we were done for, finished altogether, and that we were being told that we had got to come in any case so we had better come quietly. Those were the days when we were going about swearing what we would do if Hitler landed. Our courage was all right, but, as a matter of fact, the whole population, apart from about one division of soldiers, had not a half a dozen youngsters' catapults among them. And we remember the days when we were so pleased by the action of America in sending what we thought then was a valuable assortment of arms but which were very poor by the standards of to-day. When we think of those days and now, when we see our men, our great guns, our tanks, and the swarms of our planes everywhere, we realise what wonders have been wrought. I think that, regardless of political opinions, and in spite of the criticisms that we have to make at times, the country is grateful to the Government who have borne the burden and have been responsible for such great achievements. Millions of men and women in this country, too, have given service freely and at great sacrifice to themselves, asking nothing in return. On what may be the eve, as I think it is, of possible attacks somewhere in Europe, it is right to say that while we


have in war-time the mean showing themselves, it is still more true that the bulk of the population have given and do give themselves without let or hindrance for the great cause in which we are engaged.
I think the country is very sober about the undertaking which is before us. It is in a different frame of mind from what it was three months ago. It understands, as well as citizens can, what we are about to do. I know that the Government will never be influenced by propaganda. So grave is the need for calling upon our men to-day that we do not want the Government to be influenced in their timing and in their strategy by any propaganda which results from the idea that they are not quick enough in action. I am very pleased that our people are not too much influenced by propaganda. We had 20 years of it from Mussolini, and 10 years of it from Hitler. There is general resentment on the part of the ordinary man in the street, who may be considered a simple person, by people who think themselves clever attempting to bludgeon his brains with their ideas. Those in power would do well to note this resentment. I can say with assurance that the average British man or woman wants real facts before making a decision, and I am glad that our Government generally recognise that. The one or two instances of propaganda which have ignored that consideration have been so gauche, so left-handed, so bad, that even those who were responsible would hardly call them a success. The timing and the strategy of this matter, irrespective of criticism from outside, ought to be decided on the facts as they are at the particular moment. We cannot go into detail on this matter, and I should be the last person to attempt to do so.
This operation is almost the biggest thing attempted in military history. Napoleon did not attempt such a thing, and Hitler did not. The only reason we can attempt it is that there is a British Navy, in addition to the Royal Air Force. The British Navy we take for granted, like the law of gravity—we cannot see it, but we are told it is there. A lot of people forget the British Navy only when it is not immediately serving their purpose. I remember once, in a part of the Mediterranean, before the war, meeting nationals of a country, and they seemed to think that the British Navy was theirs

instead of ours—when they had finished I was not sure whose it was. We know now that we can get a landing. We have had landings already in the South of Europe. But Dieppe and other actions have taught us—Anzio has taught us, for that matter—that the landing is not the only thing; there must be consolidation. I trust that, before a great effort like this is made, those in charge will be sure that these men, from whom we are asking so much, will not be placed in a position where, having faced the worst dangers in landing, they cannot be reinforced. That is a very difficult subject, and I do not want to say more about it.
We are calling these men to one of the gravest tasks that ever men were called to do. Soberly we await the event. Many of these men have already endured greatly in various parts of the world. It is a grim task which awaits them. It is a melancholy fact that the manhood of the nation should at this hour have to be called upon to face such a duty, but it would have meant the surrender of manhood and womanhood and all that matters in human life if we had not been prepared to do this thing. With their American comrades and the soldiers of many other nations, once more they are about to undertake the task of defeating the Germans practically on their own ground. The American and the British soldiers in years gone by accomplished that task beyond the shadow of a doubt. We did it, and we almost forgot. All I can say is that I trust that when this magnificent effort is made, when our men and the soldiers of the Allied nations have undoubtedly accomplished the tasks set before them, the nations which do the fighting will remember in the time of peace, so that never more shall men be called upon to perform such a duty.

Major Conant: My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War has given us an interesting review of the work of the Army since the last Estimates were introduced. I would like to join my hon. friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) in congratulating him upon the clarity with which he has given his account. If I may pick out distinctive features of the past 12 months and compare them with those of the previous year, I would say that in 1942 the Army showed that it could defeat the enemy in a straight


battle. We first of all defeated the Italians in Africa and, after practising on them, we were able to defeat the Germans. But the distinctive feature, I believe, of the past year has been that the Army has shown that it can when necessary combine with the other arms of the Service, and, whereas only recently the Navy, the Army and the Air Force all spoke different languages, we have found this year, from the successful carrying out of a number of landing operations, that the combination which some people thought at one time could be obtained between the Army and the Air Force only by subordinating the one to the other has been obtained by different means.
I can think of no more difficult military operation than the landing of a modem Army upon a hostile shore; and I can think of no more complicated operation to plan. I was taught in the last war, as a very young soldier, to look down on the Staff officer. When we were in the trenches we used to regard the Staff officer who came round as something that was quite unnecessary; he seemed to come round only when things were especially quiet, and to find fault with everyone and everything, and eventually he seemed to disappear to the luxury and comfort from which we imagined he had come. That was the view, I think, of many people in the front line. Things have completely changed to-day. The front-line soldier to-day realises that the soldier serving upon a Staff is probably running risks as great as, or even greater than, the soldier in the front line, and that the whole success of the most complicated operations depends on the brain of those people who have planned the operations behind the line. It may be because soldiers are told far more than in former times what they have to do, and the reasons for doing it.
I want to offer a few brief observations about war correspondents. We all enjoy the very clear and interesting stories which they send home, and which we hear on the radio and read in the papers, and the armchair critics are able to base their criticisms upon a far surer foundation as a result. We all want the very latest and the maximum amount of information to come home to us. There is only one qualification which I would

mention, that is, that we are most anxious that no news should be sent home if the collection of that news in any way, however remotely, can interfere with the military operations. I would like to have an assurance that the activities of war correspondents, where they are allowed to go, what they are allowed to see as well as what they actually say, are entirely under the control of the soldiers on the spot. There were alarm and despondency last week when there was some delay in the sending home of news and no doubt we were right to become anxious. The Prime Minister intervened and things were put right, but I think it is essential that we should be satisfied that these men of great resources, courage and enthusiasm should not run the risk of interfering with military operations in a task they are carrying out so well.
I am very glad to say, in that connection, that the practice which was started a short time ago—I think last year—of publishing the names of units and regiments as soon as possible and without giving away information which the enemy does not already possess, has been continued, not only because my own regiment has received a mention lately, but because I think that such information and stories about units are a great consolation to the relatives of those who are serving and a great inspiration to the young soldiers, the recruits, here at home and elsewhere. There is an immense amount of regimental loyalty and patriotism in this country, and it is much more satisfactory and satisfying to a soldier to hear what his regiment has been doing in the previous week than what it did 20, 30 or 100 years before. I do hope, as far as possible, that practice will be continued and extended and also that when those re-organisations are carried out—as my right hon. Friend explained, they are to a large extent inevitable—every effort will be made to preserve the regimental traditions which have meant so much in the past.
My right hon. Friend referred briefly to the question of demobilisation, and I entirely agree with him that it is of very little use to speak in any detail about this subject at the present time, and that one must all the time remember that we have not yet beaten Germany and that even when we have we are pledged to continue this war until all our enemies have


surrendered unconditionally. But an official statement has been made as to the broad method upon which people are to be demobilised, and I would like to see that followed by a further broad statement as to what we propose to do to make that possible. I should like to hear it said not only that men, when military conditions allow, are to be demobilised on the basis of first in first out, but that, to make that possible, we intend, when that time eventually arrives, to continue conscription and to abolish reserved trades, and that we are then going to call up the necessary age groups, the younger men, to take the place of those soldiers who wish to come home, so that after a period of training they may be employed in any future police duties that are required. That suggestion is nothing but a skeleton; of course, it is not a plan. But I think it is a skeleton which would give a great deal of satisfaction to the serving soldier. There would, of course, be many exceptions to that general outline, but before we can talk of demobilisation in any detail there is a great deal of work for the Army to do, and I am confident, from the experience of the Army's work in the past two years since it has been re-equipped, that the men will carry out whatever tasks may fall to their lot to perform.

Lieut.-Colonel Gluckstein: I should like to join with my hon. Friends in congratulating the Secretary of State on the admirable and concise statement which he has made to-day. Of course, he was unable to cover more than a limited number of subjects and I cannot complain that he has not told me the particular things to which I wish to refer, in the main portion of my speech. I would like, initially, to say two things. The first is that while the Secretary of State paid, without immodesty one may say, a well-deserved tribute to the Army, he might, perhaps, have mentioned the Territorial Army which has not yet received the full measure of commendation it really deserves. My right hon. Friend the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has pointed out to me, as have other Members of the Territorial Army, that the failure to give adequate promotion in the last war and again in this war to the Territorial Army has undoubtedly had a serious effect on recruiting between the two wars. It is a fact that the Terri-

torial Army has not received the recognition which, in my opinion, it is entitled to have.
The second point to which I would like to refer is on the question of education. The Secretary of State spoke about the technical training courses which would be available to members of the Army both before and after demobilisation. I should be most grateful to hear from the Secretary of State what steps are being taken to use the valuable training which has been given to a number of persons now in the Army so as to fit them for similar occupations as civilians. I should like to know whether the T.U.C., for example, has been asked to set some sort of standard which it will be prepared to adopt as sufficient for the admission of a man into a particular trade union when he has served in one of the technically trained portions of the Army, or what further instruction it will be necessary for that man to have in order to qualify himself for inclusion in a technical trade. I hope that attention will be paid to that aspect so that the very valuable technical training which men have had in the Army will not be completely lost when they come out.
The purpose of my speech to-day is to draw attention to the problem of the repatriation of prisoners of war. I would like to say that in my opinion it is a most important question, because, in the first place, it deals with upwards of 100,000 men and their families. If I may say so, the treatment of this question by the Government and the military authorities may well be regarded as a touchstone of the sincerity of the Government in dealing with general demobilisation. We have had a preliminary and a small experience, and I submit that we ought to learn some valuable lessons from certain mistakes which appear to have been made in the case of our recently repatriated prisoners. I will say at the outset that I have not the slightest desire to attack the War Office on this matter I recognise that, as far as the welcome home was concerned, they did as well as they possibly could, and the suggestions I am hoping to make I trust will be found helpful and not destructive. But I am bound to say that after that initial welcome home there has been some falling off in the treatment of the people who have come back. Perhaps it may be helpful if we analyse the problem by considering the mentality


of repatriated prisoners. Many of them return home with what I can only describe as a Stalag mentality engendered by a gallant and continuous passive resistance to the German military authorities. Though largely creditable to the sense of duty of these soldiers, it is not easily eradicated or reversed when they come to deal with their own British military authorities. We know that a number of these men have suffered privations and, very often, have been under-nourished. They have certainly suffered from depression and a sense of being out of things. Their initiative has been sapped and their self-respect has been affected.
I do not think I can do better than to read to the House an extract from the words of one who 43 years ago was himself a prisoner of war and is now the leader of our war effort, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This is what he said about his experience as a prisoner of war when he was captured by the Boers:
You feel a constant sense of humiliation. The days are very long; hours crawl like paralytic centipedes. Nothing amuses you. Reading is difficult; writing impossible. Life is one long boredom from dawn till slumber.
Then he adds:
I certainly hated every minute of my captivity more than I have hated any other period in my whole life. Looking back on those days I have always felt the keenest pity for prisoners.
These are the views of the leader of the Government to-day, and I expect that they will percolate through into all parts of his Government. These sentiments will be shared by his subordinates and his colleagues. I would remind the House that many of the men who have come back in the recent convoys feel bitter at being let down, as they think and as many of them say, through the inefficiency or inadequacy of the armaments provided for them, and they feel, perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly, that that inadequacy was the cause of their capture. We must remember that these are men who have been away from this country for years. Some of them are men who fought at Dunkirk and with the 51st Division at S. Valery, men who fought in Crete and Greece. They have been cut off from this country for a long time—they have become Rip Van Winkles—and on returning to this country they feel a

deep sense of bitterness for the reasons I have just given.
Another unfortunate aspect of their captivity appears to be that they have got an underlying fear that their health has suffered some permanent injury. Very often that fear is quite unfounded, but, of course, it is necessary to eradicate it by intelligent medical care at all costs because a man handicapped by that fear may prove very difficult to rehabilitate. Of course, while the prisoners have been away they have been idealising the homes to which they will return and the conditions which they will find when they get back. The reality, of course, is very different from what they imagined it to be. They have got to adapt and adjust themselves to the conditions at home as they are to-day, a thing which is very difficult even for people who have been living here all the time. I would like to point out that probably some of these considerations apply with equal force to men who have been overseas for any period of time although not as prisoners of war. A great task will have to be undertaken to adjust them on their return home. But I want to deal particularly with the repatriated people. They were only a few in number, but, of course, they are the forerunners of a very much larger group of people. I want to say that from contacts I have had with them that they do not want pity or sympathy; they want to be understood. I suggest that we cannot afford a misunderstanding with these men. We canot afford to allow a sore to fester at a time when it is important that there should be no misunderstanding and when there should be real national unity in the rebuilding process after this war is over.
I ask the Government to consider the following suggestions in the light of the problem which I have outlined to them. I suggest that all men who have been in captivity for two years or more and who return to this country, should be asked, at their choice, whether they wish to remain in the Army or whether they wish to be demobilised forthwith. If they ask for demobilisation, they should be guaranteed civilian employment or training in order that they may obtain civilian employment, but I emphasise that the choice should be theirs, because, apart from anything else, even on grounds of expediency, I would suggest to the War Office


that they are unlikely to obtain a very large number of men fit for service from among these prisoners. Therefore, it would be much better to act generously and give them the choice. When they are asked to make that choice, they should be given the help and advice of individual officers who have themselves experienced captivity, and who will, therefore, enjoy the confidence of the repatriated prionsers. The general criticism of these men is that they are not understood, because only those who have been through it can understand. If the soldier elects demobilisation, the payment of a pension or a gratuity and the provision of a new suit, a certificate of good conduct, if he has earned it, and the Ministry of Labour form for employment are pretty poor substitutes for the comradeship and leadership which the man enjoyed while he was in the Army.
You have to make some effort to ease the absorption of the soldier into civilian life, and that is a task which the military authorities must undertake. I understand that the Australian Government have rehabilitation officers who do this sort of work. The British Legion, the British Red Cross, and the Prisoners of War Relatives' Association might all be invited to help in the task. One might even extend the suggestion so that it covered the general demobilisation of the Army and that military liaison officers should work in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour to advise and guide all ex-servicemen in due season. I hope that we shall avoid any suggestion on this occasion or the creation of an impression that the Army uses the services of a man for as long as it suits it, and that, after that, it gets rid of him without any particular reference to what happens to him. I do not believe it to be true, but it would be most unfortunate if such an impression got about, and it could easily get about if we did not take some steps such as I have suggested.
Suppose that after a man has considered the alternative he says, "I will remain in the Army." At present it cannot happen. Unless a man has been discharged on grounds of health all the repatriated people have remained in the Army. Here are one or two instances of the troubles which they have suffered since their return to the Army for men who come back from years in a prison camp need easing into the Army just as

much as they need easing into civilian life. The first point which causes a great deal of trouble and irritation is the settling of pay and allowances. That is a serious matter and I ask the War Office that, if there is any doubt, it should be exercised generously in favour of the soldier. It probably will not amount to very much in money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) is not here to remind us about pounds, shillings and pence being meaningless symbols, but on this occasion the Finance Branch of the War Office might consider acting generously and even improvidently. I do not think they would find themselves seriously criticised if they did.
The second point is that these men, unlike officers, who are repatriated, get no clothing coupons; they can apply for them and the theory is that they will receive them almost as soon as they apply. The fact is that a great many of them have had 28 days' leave and have walked about in uniform because they could not get clothing coupons. This has caused a serious grievance. It should be remedied. It makes a difference to these men who have come back home and do not want to be conspicuous until they have integrated themselves into the national life. They do not want to be asked awkward questions. They feel better if they are in civilian clothes and steps should be taken to see that they get them when they go on leave. I do not think that the Board of Trade would suffer any serious loss on that account.
Do not take these old soldiers, many of them Regulars with years of service, and treat them as recruits when they get to their depots. Do not put them in charge of instructors who have not had any overseas service themselves. It can be avoided; there is no great difficulty about it. It is a small thing, but it makes a great deal of difference to a man who is feeling out of place, and a little bitter, in any event. Above all, give these men a generous diet because they have been starved for a long time with only their Red Cross parcels to keep them alive. Give them reasonable leave and plenty of opportunities of consulting the welfare service about the inevitable domestic problems which have arisen while they have been away.
So much for those who get back and now something about those who are still in the camps. The War Office should give


itself the chance to deal properly with the repatriated prisoners who are not yet back, by sending through the Red Cross, an account of what can and cannot be done when the prisoner returns home and in particular—and I have had this mentioned to me by a number of returned officers—let the men still in prison know that the Convention payments which they receive have some real value. They are frequently being squandered because it is not believed by the men who are in the camps that they will have any value whatever after they are released. That is not true, and it is most important for their own sakes that they should realise it. If it is possible—one cannot give details—give these men still in prison some idea of the demobilisation and rehabilitation plans which have been arranged. If you do that probably it will ease the burden of yourselves very much indeed when the large number of prisoners get back again. I feel a strong sense of duty in making these observations to the Government, because I reflect that, in 1940, but for the grace of God, I myself might well have been in captivity. These are serious matters, and I hope that the Government will find it possible, not perhaps to-day, but at some future time, to indicate their policy so as to satisfy the many thousands of men and their families, to say nothing of the general conscience of the people of this country. For we all realise how much we owe to these men and how much they have sacrificed and suffered for us.

Mr. Horabin: As usual, the Minister to-day has made a good speech and he also enlivened it with a pretty wit. During the course of his speech he said that the tribute to our fighting soldiers was not nearly enough, and I thoroughly agree with him. I think, too, as he thinks, that the present fighting Army is probably the best that this country has ever had. Our task in this House is to see that these British soldiers of ours are given the right leadership and the right equipment that will match their grit and their courage in the fight they have to undertake. What I have to say will be said in order to see that they get that right leadership and equipment. I am sure that those of us who have talked to soldiers who have returned from Italy, and who have taken the trouble to study thoroughly the Press reports of what is happening in Italy,

must be, at any rate, a little disturbed at the course of the Italian campaign. It seems that we have switched over from mobile warfare to static warfare once again. Fighting soldiers keep telling one, in rather lurid language, of the way they have to fight up one side of a mountain by frontal attack, and, as soon as they have done that, have to fight down the other side, and then to fight up another mountain, and so on. And they imply that minimum results are being got for the maximum expenditure of invaluable lives and for less invaluable ammunition. We are perhaps getting back to the conditions we had at Passchendaele in the last war and that, in the interests of our fighting soldiers, has to be avoided at all costs, because it is preventible.
What are the causes of this? There are a number of factors which are responsible and they all seem to point to one thing—failure at the top still to grasp fully those changed conditions of warfare that are brought about when a whole nation is involved in war and we have the conditions of a totalitarian war. I sometimes suspect that we still have to fight this war in terms of the last war. One of the explanations given for the slackness of the Italian campaign has been the weather. I would like to ask whether the General Staff, in making their plans, studied the meteorological reports for the areas of Italy in which they are fighting. If they had, they would realise that there are very heavy rains in October, which soak and soften the roads and the sub-soil, and that it is not until February at the earliest that the rain begins to cease. Do they get these reports and study them, or do they disregard them? Is their attitude the same as that of the general in the last war who received a deputation of scientific societies wishing to impress on the War Office the importance of meteorology? This is what the general said in reply:
Gentlemen, I have listened a long time to your presentation of your case, but, gentlemen, what I have to say is this—the British army fights its battles with guns and bayonets and not with meteorology.
In planning the Italian campaign the exigencies of the weather were either foreseen or else they were ignored. The Press correspondents with the Forces in Italy have made it abundantly clear that, since October and November, our Armies in Italy are neither effectively organised nor effectually equipped for their task. I took


the trouble yesterday to read through a number of these reports, but I will only quote two of them to the House—one from the "Daily Mail," of 8th February, and the other from that highly respectable paper, the "Daily Telegraph," of 17th February. The correspondent of the "Daily Mail" says:
The impression I have formed, particularly during the last three months, is that our technique—indeed our war machinery as a whole in this country—is ponderous. We have stubbornly persisted in trying to steam roller Germans from positions no steam roller can ever hope to reach. We have not improvised nearly enough, either in the matter of weapons or tactics. Surely this mountain warfare calls for highly mobile, specially trained forces, with speedy light, rough-riding vehicles, with powerful yet easily transportable armies.
Then it goes on to say:
I was depressed the other day when I heard a British brigadier say that artillery was our greatest war-winning weapon, and that lessons of France in 1914 to 1918 still held good to-day.
In the "Daily Telegraph" on 17th February last a special correspondent said this:
The Germans owe much of their success in the defence to the flexibility of their methods. Whereas our fighting unit tends to be the division, the Germans operate far more frequently with the battalion as an independent unit. This has stood them in good stead, most particularly in their concentrations against the Anzio forces. Each of these battalions with its supporting artilllery moves and fights as an integral whole. Greater responsibility consequently devolves upon the regimental officer. The method seems justified by the result.
But these things are no new discoveries. In the Debate on the Army Estimates in 1942, I dwelt at length on these very points in relation to Singapore; in fact, I could have made here to-day the speech that I made at that time merely substituting examples from the Italian campaign for the examples that I gave from the Malayan campaign then. During the course of my remarks I described the functions of the enemy composite groups, referred to by the "Daily Telegraph" correspondent, and I also dealt at some length with the German selection and training of their regimental officers. We come back to the fact that it is failure to evolve correct tactical doctrines based on modern developments in military technique that is responsible for these failures. That is what I said two years ago and can say again to-day, and in the meantime

two years have gone by and it is our fighting soldiers in Italy who are paying the price for our failure to learn the lessons of those past mistakes.
I feel that it is because there is no strong Opposition in this House that the Government have been able to ignore the criticisms that have been made in the past, and have been able to go on in their own way. Failing a strong Opposition in this House, which we are not likely to get, I return to the proposal that I made in 1942, which is that we should have a Select Committee of this House to pass continuously under review the military conduct of the war, in the same way as the Select Committee on National Expenditure deals with the money end of things. If we did that, I should feel that we, as Members of this House, would be doing our duty by the fighting soldiers of the British Army, to whom the Secretary of State paid such an eloquent tribute.
We have yet to hear an explanation of what happened at Singapore two years ago, and our recent failure in the Dodecanese—which has already had, I think, profound political results and, therefore, strategic results—has not yet been explained in any way. This failure really to get down to the causes of our military mistakes is contributing to a prolongation of the war. I also feel, from what happened in the Dodecanese, and from the way in which that incident was treated, that our generals are being encouraged to be over-cautious, and an over-cautious general who fails to take advantage of a favourable military situation delays the victorious conclusion of the war.
Then there is the question of the political weapon, which I also dealt with at some length in the Army Debate of 1942. Under the conditions of totalitarian war, politics have become, as I then said, one of the most vital weapons in the armoury of war. Surely, earlier appreciation of the importance of the Tito movement, which I think was lacking because of political considerations, might have given a different direction to the Southern front. We might, as a result, have avoided this frontal attack in Italy. As it was, I am given to understand that it was the Army which, in the end, insisted upon a recognition of the full support of


Tito as against Mihailovitch, and, as a result, the Prime Minister and the Government had to give political ground on account of military considerations. To-day, however, there are also good omens in Italy. There are reports of more than 300,000 guerillas fighting in Northern Italy at the present time. They are under the control of six anti-Fascist parties who formed the Bari Conference. If that is so, particularly having regard to the political leadership of those guerillas, I disagree profoundly with the Prime Minister when he said that the Badoglio Government command more obedience from the Armed Forces of Italy than any other Government that could now be formed.
The British Army, during the next few weeks or months, is going to undertake what will probably be the greatest expedition and the greatest operation that will be carried out in this war. The casualties they suffer will depend to a great measure upon the way in which the higher ranks of the Army take advantage of, and study and learn, the lessons of previous campaigns. I hope they are being thoroughly studied at the present moment in the interests not only of the ordinary people of this country, but of those men who have to risk their lives on behalf of us all.

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins: We have had a most interesting appreciation of the situation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War as regards the past, present, and paulo-post future of the operations of the Army as a whole. I would like to detain the House for a few minutes on some rather wider issues: what sort of an Army are we going to have after the war? There are constant and insistent demands for planning after the war in every other direction. In all kinds of Reports the social welfare of our people, the improvement of the condition of the land, and other matters are considered, but we hardly ever hear about our plans for our security after the war, on which all these future benefits depend. If we lost this war or any other war, we know full well the sort of conditions that would be imposed on us. We should be condemned to slavery and bankruptcy, and we should be totally unable to provide for the social amelioration of our people

that is envisaged in all these Reports. We should be bled white. In the old Prussian phrase, we should only have our eyes to weep with and we should, no doubt, be kept permanently under the jack-boot of the self-styled Herrenvolk. I was glad to hear, in the concluding remarks of my right hon. Friend, that the Government have not been unmindful of this, but I think we must impress upon them the fundamental importance of this question. They have not been bothered on it, as they have in other directions, but I am sure they realise that it is fundamental and that war expenditure, on which everything depends, must have priority over every other kind of expenditure.
Now is the time, when we have a National Government, to come to some sort of agreement for the future on the great question of the land forces of the Crown after the war. In years past, when the Secretary of State brought in his Estimates, we had a well-reasoned statement of the rôle of the Army, our commitments, the numbers and strength required which, I may say, were always as exiguous as possible. The whole scheme, as it affected the Army, postulated the theory that the Navy was supreme—it kept command of the sea, of our coasts, and kept the whole country inviolate. At one time, not recently, we considered that it should be double the strength of the next strongest naval power, and on this assumption we had a small Army. I will not weary the House with what the Army was, but half of it was at home with its recruits of young soldiers, and the other half was abroad with its more matured and seasoned soldiers, and the small expeditionary force and the semi-trained Territorials. The whole point is, that it was based on the fact that the Navy held the sea and that we had time to make our preparations for any eventuality that might occur.
Recent years, and the last war, have taught us many lessons for the future and I think we might take them to heart. Wars are no longer localised between individual nations, they become global and spread throughout the whole world. All big Powers are drawn into the war in the end. Smaller nations try to keep out, try to proclaim their neutrality, but that neutrality is a farce. They are either too weak to enforce it, or they get drawn in


on one side or the other, depending on their situation and the fear of becoming the next victim. Some have called themselves non-belligerents, a term which I believe was invented by Mussolini, and which is almost the same thing as taking actual sides. As I understand it, the only difference is that they do not actually put troops into the field, although in the case of Spain, she is not only a non-belligerent but has actually put the Blue Division into the field against our Ally, Russia.
The element, of course, that has altered the conditions a good deal is the air, which has come to play a most decisive part in the conduct of the war. This renders the Navy no longer the power it was without its aid and co-operation, and we have no longer the time we used to have to prepare. Neither have we shelter for the Navy; the English Channel is no longer the protection it was. In fact it looks as though, before very long, it will be nothing more than a glorified anti-tank ditch, because even to-day the amphibious tank has come to stay. The power of the air, and the pace of modem Army vehicles has speeded up the whole tempo of war. There is no longer a breathing space, or time to prepare behind the shelter of the Navy. Enemy planes can be over this country in a matter of hours, if not minutes. Air power in the last war was in its infancy. We can now drop more bombs in one night over Berlin than were dropped on this country in the whole of the four years of the last war. Berlin can be blotted out in five or six attacks. What might happen in the next war? It may be that London would be blotted out in one night.
The old method of starting a war has gone. The period of tension, the breaking of diplomatic relations and the formal declaration of war—these leisurely proceedings are totally obsolete. Germany and Japan made their sudden aggressions on their victims while diplomatic relations were still in being. As I have said, the whole tempo of war has accelerated. Germany was the originator of the term "blitzkreig," which means the conquering of one's victim in double-quick time before the next victim has time to think, and to present a fait accompli to other nations before they have time to consider what policy they will pursue. Blitzkreig is no new invention of Hitler; it was invented by that well-known trium-

virate, Bismarck, Roon and Moltke, in 1864. They started a sudden aggression on Denmark, but that gallant little nation held out longer than some of the larger nations which were attacked afterwards, because her navy was predominant over the German navy. This triumvirate brought in Austria to help, and then, having discovered the weaknesses of Austria, they chose her as their next victim, two years later. To all intents and purposes there was a blitzkreig in the decisive battle of Königratz, sometimes called Sadowa. On that occasion they got Italy to help, but Italy as usual was defeated at Custozza, although she did her job by drawing off the Archduke Albert's army from the main theatre of war.
All this time France looked on; she was the next victim. The blitzkreig, in her case, was practically over in a month. From the time Germany crossed the frontier to the decisive battle of Sedan was a month. That shows that blitzkreig is nothing new. In this war it took 17 days to conquer Poland and 21 to conquer Greece. From the time that Germany crossed the frontiers of France, Luxemburg, Belgium and Holland to Dunkirk was only 19 days. Holland was subdued in no more than five days. We must learn a good many lessons from these facts. In peace we must be much more ready for war than ever before. Are we to follow, after the war, our historic practice of practically disbanding our Army and scrapping our armaments after we have won a commanding position in Europe and the world, or are we to learn the lessons from the past?
I think it is a matter of common knowledge that after the Napoleonic wars the Duke of Wellington could not provide enough troops to give a State funeral to King William IV. Also, the troops were so untrained that he is said to have said that if the Army got into Hyde Park he did not think they could ever be got out again. When this war is over nobody knows how soon hostile conditions may again materialise. Germany knows only too well how to organise secretly. In fact, I think that at this moment, with the possibility of defeat in view, she is already beginning to think of the next war. I will remember in 1933, just when Hitler came into power, that we chose that moment to reduce our Imperial Forces by no less than 152,000 men. During


that period we based our strength on the futile basis that there would not be a war for 10 years. To that basis we adhered until 1934 and even into 1935—within three years of the Munich crisis and within four years of the outbreak of this war. That shows the futility of such conjectures. When people say there will be peace it generally means that there will be war. I believe that it was in June, 1914, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that never was peace more secure in Europe. I will not say that those are his exact words, but he used words to that effect, although with probably more Welsh imagery about them. Our late Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Neville Chamberlain, came back from Munich with the words, "Peace in our time" on his lips. Therefore, I always think it is ominous when anybody tells us that peace is assured.
After the South African war there was always great controversy between the principles of universal as against voluntary service. Field Marshal Lord Roberts, on the one hand, favoured universal service and General Sir Ian Hamilton was for the voluntary principle, on the other. We all remember the old tag about one volunteer being worth ten pressed men. If one wants to reduce that to absurdity one has only to imagine one battalion of voluntary British soldiers against a whole German division of conscripted men. I feel that we must have some sort of universal service after the war; we must combine universal service with the Regular Army. We shall always have to have a volunteer Regular Army, superimposed upon the Territorials, for service abroad. It might possibly be smaller and with longer service than at present, when the whole country is properly organised. Service in the Regular Army might be the beginning of continuous Government service in civil life, with pension afterwards calculated for the whole of a man's Government service. There would be the usual intake of volunteers, supplemented by those who had been called up for universal service. Many who have enjoyed their training would, I think, willingly come forward and join the Regular Army and see the world at the Government's expense. But the Service must be a profession, with favourable pay and conditions and

assured employment for a man after he leaves that Service if he so desires. He must not be thrown out, like he has too often been thrown on to the labour market in the past at a comparatively young age, without a trade and without any prospects. In the past a man did sometimes receive training at a vocational training centre, but, unfortunately, that seldom qualified him to join a trade union.
Universal service has many compensations and advantages besides pure utility defence. It would be good for the physical and mental welfare of our nation. I think we should see fewer juvenile delinquents if we had universal service. It would improve character and promote good fellowship, which is a great thing. There is nothing like the good fellowship there is in the Army. Further it would inculcate the duties of citizenship. I would like it to be considered as the final stage of a man or woman's education. If there was any loss of time everybody would be in the same boat and I believe that the gain to them would be greater than the loss of time. This should be no party question; now is the time to consider it while all three parties are working in conjunction for the furtherance of the war. We have had two devastating wars in our generation. Let us make some sacrifice of our individual liberty to try to ensure that we do not have another. We shall always have wars so long as human nature is what it is; people will always quarrel and if the worst comes to the worst, and we have to endure another war, the only way to ensure our protection is by being properly prepared to meet it.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: If I do not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins) in his arguments he will understand that there was also a difference between us in the last war when, I believe, he was a major-general while I was a humble corporal in the ranks. I do not claim his knowledge of historic military strategy and for that reason I do not wish to follow him in what he has said. I would be acting contrary to my feelings if I did not express my appreciation of the Secretary of State and pay tribute to him for the workmanlike survey of the task he has undertaken, the responsibility which has been his during the past 12 months and the gigantic problem he has now to meet.


I express my admiration most sincerely for what he has done, but I can hardly express the same kind of admiration for the rudeness which sometimes comes from him when he is being criticised by Members, or when suggestions are being put to him, in all sincerity, by ordinary humble folk like myself. From time to time, some of us learn from the public what they are thinking and feeling, and when we refer to the public's mind on the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State thinks everybody wants to shoot at him and get rid of him. As I have said, he is sometimes very rude indeed, and we cannot admire him for that.
It is on the question of the Army in Britain that I want to speak for a short time. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an opportunity of selecting subjects and the many he left for us would take a week to debate. He gave us an assurance that the War Office was making active and general preparations concerning demobilisation and said that its plans, though not complete, were in an active state of preparation.
Some weeks ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware of the types of suits that were being offered to demobilised soldiers. After one or two questions, and probably a discussion or two, he told the House on 18th January that, whatever types of suits were being offered, hon. Members would be agreeably surprised by the variety and quality and scope of the outfit that he intended to issue. The suit that is being issued even to-day, is similar to the type of outfit that was offered to demobilised men after the Boer War. We do not change very much. We did not change even during the last war. But it has become clear that the right hon. Gentleman, or his advisers, have made up their minds that they are going to have revolutionary changes. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some indication whether the newspaper puffs or hand-outs which have been circulated, represent the official point of view on what we may expect during the next few weeks, and whether the suggestions that have been made about revolutionary changes go much further than existing arrangements. At present a soldier receives a suit of austerity design, a khaki shirt, a cap and a collar—for which I believe he has to pay 8d. or 9d.

—army boots, army socks and army underclothes. I feel that the Minister does not require any convincing at this hour that that kind of arrangement is not good enough.

Sir J. Griģģ: The hon. Member need not be worried. It will not be that kind of arrangement.

Mr. Walkden: I am glad to have that assurance, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman, rather than that he should allow newspaper reports—

Sir J. Griģģ: I am not responsible for newspaper reports.

Mr. Walkden: Whoever is responsible, it seems strange that just before the right hon. Gentleman replied to that question, someone in his Department was extremely anxious to see to it that a kind of coloured story was put out, about what was to be issued by the Department.

Sir J. Griģģ: The Department was responsible for nothing of the kind.

Mr. Walkden: Someone even loaned a suit to the reporter who wrote the article in the "Daily Mail." It is strange that, although the Minister has given an assurance that changes are to be made, and that he is going to exhibit the garments in due course, the "News Chronicle," two days ago, came out with a survey of what is supposed at the moment to be known only to the Minister—namely what the arrangements are to be. Will the right hon. Gentleman check up and find who issued that information? If it is true, I am very happy to learn that a complete civilian outfit, by what I should call the best manufacturers in the country, is to be made available to every soldier on demobilisation, including shirts, ties, socks, hats and everything else that a civilian requires. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that, if that is not true, the information is corrected without delay and, if it is exaggerated, will he give us the fullest possible information on what his intentions are?
There is another matter which has been the subject of two or three questions that I have addressed to him. He got angry even about this. He answered a question about the provision of entertainment in certain provincial towns on Sundays and said that this House alone could decide and, until it changed its present decision,


he could do nothing. That is not true. What he has been asked to do is to survey the needs of men in the Army in various provincial towns, and if there is a shortage of entertainment, whatever may be done for the general public, whatever may be the local by-laws, or what-ever provision there may or may not be in local areas, it is his duty to see that provision is made by his Department for the troops. To say that he requires further powers from the House is to give a false answer. There are at least 20 areas where authority has already been given for towns to provide entertainment on Sundays. In Doncaster, the corporation have just agreed to provide it for the general public, but six of the cinema managers have said they cannot do it because they have not the staff available. That is a bad state of affairs. I mentioned the case of Newark almost two years ago and brought a certain amount of criticism on my head for describing it as a thoroughly miserable hole on Sunday evenings.
The Minister has a big responsibility for the well-being and welfare of the troops. Does he refuse to accept the suggestion that, if cinemas or theatres are not open, he does not require more power to open them himself? The War Office has, undoubtedly, all the power required and he could act right away. If he visits some of these provincial towns, where there may be anything from 10,000 to 20,000 troops, he will realise why I have selected Newark as an example and called it a "miserable hole." Why should soldiers who have never been inside a public-house, or a drinking club, be compelled to visit such places if they want diversion? I beg the right hon. Gentleman to examine his powers and to co-operate and collaborate with whoever is willing to render assistance to open up theatres for the troops. If he does so, I believe he will quickly earn the gratitude of the men and women in the ranks of the Army.
There is a third issue which does not affect the country as a whole but which particularly affects the wives of soldiers in London. A soldier's wife in London is entitled to 6d. a day extra. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter for the House to decide. I believe that wives in every other part of the country should get the 6d. as well. A few weeks ago a soldier in the

Middle East received information that his wife and family had been bombed out of their home in Battersea. The wife, on account of injuries, was transferred by the ambulance service to a place just outside the London district but so far that she could not use a London postal district address, and her pay was reduced by 6d. a day. Such pettifogging, cheeseparing tactics do not convince the soldier or the soldier's wife that there is the humanity inside the War Office that we should like to see. It is inhuman. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that there is something totally wrong in that? He ought to examine whether this woman has lost her home or not. In a letter to me he said that this expense includes an element on account of the high rates obtaining in the London area and that her home may have been only slightly damaged and may be available to her in a matter of days. But if she has lost her home she loses her sixpence.
I have raised this issue in order to give the Minister an opportunity of looking at the general question. There must be many hundreds of soldiers' wives in the London area who have been so treated and, merely because London has spilt over and the ambulance service has stretched itself to Hertford, Kent, Surrey and parts of Middlesex, the 6d. is taken away in this niggardly fashion from these people. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be rude and horrible, because we make suggestions. I ask him, for Heaven's sake, to examine the issues which have been presented to him in a sincere and human way.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I think the House will agree that we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War a very masterly survey of the situation as it existed and as it exists to-day. I know myself that I have improved my vocabulary after hearing his speech and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had a note from the Press Gallery asking for confirmation in writing of some of the words used by him. But I do not want to follow the general speech; I want to get down to one particular problem, and that is the question of the anti-aircraft defences.
This is the first occasion for three-and-a-half years or more on which I can conscientiously say that my duty as a Member of Parliament precedes my duty as a soldier. As I am not in receipt of any Army emoluments, I think I can take this


opportunity to put forward one or two suggestions on matters which I know are felt rather strongly. First, as regards the personnel. Nowhere could you find a finer lot of men, officers or other ranks, determined to play their part in the defeat of Hitlerism and in the defeat of Nazism. Their job is extremely difficult. I do not know whether hon. Members have ever considered it, but I can assure them it is not easy. The technical apparatus of anti-aircraft defence is really second to none. The average anti-aircraft man has to master something like nine or ten most technical problems and one can realise how difficult it is for anyone to try to hit a stone in the air with another stone.
The strain and tension of their work is bound to tell on them in time. They have long periods of enforced idleness followed by sudden action, and they have not the least idea two or three minutes beforehand that they are going into action. Consequently, they have to be on their toes the whole time. I wonder if hon. Members realise that these men have to be perpetually in 30-seconds readiness. The result is that for long periods of time they are not able to get a proper night's sleep. I have known cases where, for weeks on end, men have had to wear their army boots and I have also known them to have to sleep in their tin hats. It cannot be avoided.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member a question? He says that these men have been in that state for three-and-a-half years. Surely, he only means for certain specified periods in that time, certain hours in the day?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: No, I am referring to men who have been in the anti-aircraft units for three-and-a-half years.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: The hon. and gallant Member referred to men working on the anti-aircraft sites who were always in readiness. He said they have been in that condition for a considerable period of time. I am asking him whether it is only for specified hours during the day and night.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: If you take an average anti-aircraft site it is pretty well the case that during the hours of darkness the men have to be on their toes, and that position has lasted now for a con-

siderable time. I do not think anyone who has had experience will differ from me, when I say that this necessity for immediate readiness places a great strain on anti-aircraft crews. This is not a criticism in any way. It cannot be avoided, but I do want to stress the point that such a state of affairs exists. Then, again, the sites they have to occupy vary from, say, the snowy hills of the Orkneys and Shetlands—where I was myself for nine months—to the docks of London and Liverpool. The loneliness of these sites, and the difficulty of rationing them, means that the men have to put with a great deal of hardship. In the same way, the anti-aircraftman at the docks of London knows that practically every night, he is liable to get an alert and he has to be on his toes. I ask that these men should be given proper recognition. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the 1939–43 star should not be awarded to them. They deserve it. I was in Liverpool during the blitz and I can tell the House that my men went through as hard a time in a short period, as any I went through in France during the last war.
However good the anti-aircraft defences of this country may be, there is room for improvement, and I should like to put forward one or two suggestions. First, I want to bring out our old friend the channel of communications. In the Army it is necessary to work through channels of communication. It is essential that the channel of communications should be as speedy as possible. It is no secret that in the anti-aircraft Command the channel of communication from the battalion is to the brigade, from the brigade to the division, from the division to the corps, from the corps to the command and, if the command cannot deal with the matter, it has to go to the War Office. I can assure hon. Members that in many cases it takes weeks and weeks to get any reply. I do not put the matter forward in any spirit of criticism, but I ask how can inquiries go through all those different centres, and be dealt with in a reasonable time? Of course, in a great many cases, the particular crisis is over before any reply is received. The commanding officer has had to take his chance by the time approval comes back. That is very difficult, and I would like to suggest that in the case of searchlight sites and in similar instances, we ought


to try to speed up active and immediate decisions.
I would mention a case—in Liverpool—where I heard that the equipment was foreign equipment. I will not mention the name of the equipment, but all the instructions for its use were in French. None of my men knew anything about this particular kind of equipment. The Hun was bombing docks at the time and I thought that it quite likely that Liverpool would get it. I tried to get permission for advance parties to learn the equipment before we took it over, but although weeks went past I could get no authority. Eventually I got over the difficulty by finding I had the right to grant leave to electrical and mechanical engineers whose homes had been bombed and who were personnel of anti-aircraft. I sent men back, ostensibly on leave, but in actual fact they went to the regiment in Liverpool to learn the equipment we were taking over. This is no secret; it happened a long time ago. Those are the difficulties with which these units are faced and I do not think it is quite fair that commanders should have to "chance their arm" quite as much as they have to do because of long, lengthy and cumbrous channels of communications.
The second point I would like to make is that, however much we have cut down paper and orders, there are still far too many of them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will really believe that that is true. The position is very much better, but there are still far too many. In orders alone there are Army orders, the A.C.I.'s, command orders, divisional orders, brigade orders, battalion orders and company orders. They all descend in great showers on the lowest formations who cannot possibly consume them all. We send in something like 40 returns a month. I am sure that all of them are not necessary. I would like to mention one in particular, which is the denominational return. If a man changes his faith during the month the commanding officer has to find that out and record it on the return which he makes at the end of the month. I have known a dispatch rider having to go many miles to find out whether Private So-and-so belongs to the same denomination as before. In addition to the returns, the amount of paper could be decreased.
My third point is that there is a certain amount of waste that could be eliminated. I would like to put forward a suggestion which might lead to the saving of a considerable amount of petrol and oil. In searchlight battalions there are generators which generate electricity for the searchlights. For ten minutes every hour they have to be run in order to keep the temperature of the generators at a sufficiently high level so that a beam can immediately be exposed. The amount of petrol and oil used on these stationary runs is very formidable and amounts to thousands of gallons. Anyone with experience of generators knows that they differ very much. One generator will keep its heat for two or three hours, whereas another will lose its heat within one hour. The rule is, however, to run each generator for ten minutes every hour. I put into operation a test by which I put the onus on the sentry to look at the thermostat, and told him that when the heat declined to a certain point he should give the engine a stationary run. The result was that we had a saving of nearly 20 per cent. in the amount of petrol and oil used on the generators during the week. For one week I went round the sentries at night, and I never once found a sentry who was not watching the thermostat and who could not tell me what the heat was. That is a useful point if we are interested in the saving of petrol and oil. I have tried to put forward concrete suggestions, and here is one based on my experience.
I will also give an instance where there could be a saving of personnel. The average headquarters is over-staffed. I have had a letter from a divisional general, who wrote to me as a friend and not as a Member of Parliament, so that I cannot give his name. He said that when he took over his division he invited between 30 and 40 staff officers to return to their units, and that the result had been greater efficiency in the way the division was run and the units in the field were enabled to get on with their work.

Mr. Turton: Does that mean that after 40 staff officers had gone, there were sufficient left?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am including educational officers, welfare officers and all kinds of other people who are attached to a division.

Viscount Suirdale: What type of division was it?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am referring to an anti-aircraft division. I suggest that there is ample room for cutting out waste so far as both supplies and personnel are concerned. I hope that these few remarks will not be taken as criticisms, because I do not make them as criticisms in any way. However good a show may be, it can be a little better. I would like to say, however, that I believe the anti-aircraft Command in this country is a great success and infinitely better than the anti-aircraft command in regiments in countries which we are fighting. I feel that we could make improvements, and I have put forward these suggestions in the hope that they will lead to improvements.

Mr. Turton: A little time ago the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) flitted into the House and made a speech. I am sure that it will be adequately answered by the Front Bench, but I think it only right that some Members on the Back Benches should answer it. He complained that the military commander in Italy had not sufficiently studied meteorology and that the tactics employed in the campaign in Italy were wrong. He also recommended that we should set up a Select Committee to pass under review the military conduct of the war. It is a difficult and dangerous thing in this House to criticise operations that are going on and are not completed. I speak with feeling about this, because I remember a time when we were fighting in Africa and speeches were being made in the House and resolutions were being passed that undermined the morale of the troops who were fighting. I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will not repeat the speech he made to-day. If the War Office can be criticised, and I do criticise it, it is because it has not paid sufficient attention to morale. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to-day talked about the regimental spirit. I have always felt that the regimental spirit was of tremendous importance.
There is also another thing to which I think we have not paid sufficient attention, and that is the divisional spirit. It is what appeals most to the civilian army. The division is the smallest self-contained unit in the British Army. The man in the field feels that he belongs to this unit. A fine divisional spirit makes the whole

difference, during the supreme test of battle. When I have criticised the War Office for not paying sufficient attention to morale, I have been quite aware that there is one great exception, and that is General Montgomery. He has been conspicuous in encouraging the divisional and the Army spirit. I hear the Secretary of State saying he only encouraged the 8th Army spirit, but I have served under General Montgomery and know he encouraged the spirit of the 51st Highland Division, the 50th Northumbrian Division and other divisions.
The striking thing in this war is the value of publicity. The outstanding divisions of the present war have been the 51st Highland Division, the 50th Northumbrian Division, the 78th Division, and the 7th Armoured Division. We have heard a great deal about the 50th and the 51st, and that is because they were in the 8th Army, where attention was paid to morale and publicity. It is also because those two divisions were given a regional title. The 51st was from Scotland, and if ever there was found a man who was not from Scotland in it, he left by the next train. The 50th was drawn from the North of England. I suggest that the Secretary of State should pay more attention to regional areas of formations and to publicity. On publicity, more has been done recently, and I feel sure that it has been at the instigation of the Secretary of State.
Far more could be done, however, in the local and national Press if they were fed more with the achievements of the divisions which are actually in contact with the enemy. Factories which are producing equipment for particular formations could be linked up with those formations, and there would be a bond between them that would help morale both in the factory and in the formations. I also do not see why we should not follow the example of our Russian Allies and, when a division makes a signal victory or takes part in it, why there should not be added to their title the name of the victory. We would therefore speak of the 51st Highland Division of El Alamein, the 50th of Northumbria, Gazala and Primesole, and so on. That would also help morale and make the men proud to fight, and if necessary to die, for and with that division.
In all this matter there is the great bugbear of secrecy. Directly one mentions


a division in contact with the enemy, at once the intelligence security officer says: "You must not mention the location of that division, because it is imperilling lives." I earnestly beg the House to believe that it more often saves lives. Have we not fought this war long enough to know that the enemy is aware of our location just as we are aware of his? I remember being extremely interested, when I was at one part of the Mediterranean front to find that my division and a particular division of the enemy of the same numeral were located on two different islands next door to each other. I quite agree that there will be times when the security rule may make it necessary not to disclose the location of a division, but when a division has been fighting in the line, and prisoners, wounded and killed have been seen by the enemy, there is no advantage in hiding from the people at home where that division is, and the more you publicise it, the better for morale. After all, we are fighting this war in the 20th century and not in the 19th.
I would like to say one word on the regional system, and the question of drafting. We heard the Secretary of State explain some of the difficulties that make him have to scramble units by what he called promiscuous posting, and make him have to disband units. I agree that mischances will often occur, but we must admit that they are due to faulty planning by somebody in the organisation. There are times when a bad estimate is made of the casualties that will be suffered in a certain battle and, as a result, you bring out to a theatre reinforcements of a certain arm. If a big mistake is made in regard to casualties, there are the wrong kind of reinforcements and the result is promiscuous posting. I can assure the Secretary of State and the House that a great deal of promiscuous posting and scrambling of units can be avoided by looking ahead sufficiently far. To meet these difficulties we have regional depots and in our stations abroad regional branches of depots. For instance, the Highland division is reinforced from the Highland branch of the infantry base depot, and North County regiments from the Northumbrian branch. You will get promiscuous posting if you allow people in the base areas to borrow reinforcements for other purposes.
Let me give the House an example. In October, 1942, I was sent down from the 8th Army to take a job as Assistant Adjutant-General liaison and man-power officer at G.H.Q. in Cairo. My first job was this: The Battle of El Alamein had passed its first phase. The commander there wanted reinforcements. At that time, reinforcements were in short supply in the base depot. It was right in the middle of the battle. I had to go round and, in three days, see what I could collect from the Delta among troops who could be sent back, battle-fit, to General Montgomery. In three days, after going round headquarters and convalescent depots, and examining guards, I sent up seven officers and 775 other ranks, all battle fit, all men who, if there had been correct planning, would have been in that reinforcement depot, ready on call for the Army, but all borrowed. All borrowed, for guards—essential duties no doubt—or at a convalescent depot having recovered from their wounds and not getting a transfer. Examples like that, I think, show how there is misuse of personnel, and at this active stage of the war we must see that that misuse of personnel does not recur.
I can give the House many other examples of the misuse of personnel that exists. Let me give one other example. When I was in that job I went to a camp staff at a certain town in the Delta. I will not name the town. The staff in that camp had a war establishment of one officer and seven other ranks. On the date of my visit there were on that staff two officers and 120 other ranks. Is that misuse of personnel? I have heard some of the Secretary of State's not very polite comments as I have been proceeding. I will ask him, does he regard this as misuse of personnel?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not know the circumstances.

Mr. Turton: I found that of that 120 there were two sergeants who spent their time packing parcels for sending to the United Kingdom. Would the right hon. Gentleman regard that as a correct use of man-power in this year of the war? There was one private employed as a groundsman at a local sports club. Is that a correct thing? It is all very well to describe this as nonsense but this happened in the year of our Lord, 1942, November to the following January. I


have given these two examples. Clearly we must come to the conclusion that more should be done to conserve manpower at the base because it is wanted at the front to-day, and will be wanted even more to-morrow.
I heard the Secretary of State's description of the tail and the teeth and his figures that he was employing 33 per cent. in the tail and 66 per cent. as the teeth. It is difficult to know how he gets at these figures. I must say that from my experience, both here and in the Middle East, I was surprised he put the tail figures as low as he did. I was given the opportunity a little time ago to hear about the tail in detail. I was in the Middle East when the now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply came out to examine the tail and we all afforded him information on the subject. What happened? Has there been a report on this examination? Has the Parliamentary Secretary reported to the War Office? Probably the Financial Secretary will tell us. Has there been any report published? Has any action been taken on it?
As I have gone through this war I have been struck by this fact that at the base there are far too many people to support those who are fighting. I do not intend to give any comfort to the enemy by giving him information but I will make a comparison in percentages which may give a picture of what I am talking about. When Lord Wavell was administering the Middle East in 1941, when the Germans were not far away from Cairo, he had a small staff. In December, 1942, when the Huns had been pushed back to Tunisia the Staff, compared with the Staff in Lord Wavell's time, had increased in officers by 350 per cent. and in other ranks by 280 per cent. That is the Staff at General Headquarters, Cairo, with the bodies attached to it. I ask the Financial Secretary, when he replies, to tell us whether, now that the Germans are cleared out of Africa and the Middle East has a different role, we have yet got back to the figures which were necessary when General Wavell was administering the Middle East in 1941, because if we have not I think it is time we did.
In Cairo there are three quite separate headquarters, each with staffs. There is a Headquarters, British Troops in Egypt, there is Headquarters, Cairo Area, and there is General Headquarters. We have

a right to know how much there has been a decrease in these numbers in recent months. I hope that when the Government come to reply they will tell us these facts quite clearly. The reason for the headquarters staffs is as has been so well stated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower); there is far too much paper about to-day. We started the war with too much paper. I remember that in the last speech I made on the Army Estimates three years ago I quoted to the House what André Maurois said of France and paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and I had both recently left France and had both been struck by the same fact. I quoted André Maurois as saying:
Never had these honest bureaucrats, submerged as they were under waves of papers, considered what they would do if enemy tanks or motor cyclists armed with machine guns should present themselves at the gates of their citadel.
I went on to say:
we are now prepared but we have still this same waste of paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1941; col. 1083, Vol. 369.]
I have been out of the Army for some time but I have observed that since I came out the job that I did myself for two years when I was in the field now requires two officers in every division. I have seen these officers working. They are hard worked, as I was then. It was hard work because there was pile after pile of paper that ever grew. There has not been a reduction of paper, but there is a time when one finds that one can do without paper. When we fought in France we never used anything but a message pad. When we fought in the desert we did not use paper and I must say that the Army was administered just as well on a message pad as on all these reams of paper, and the Army did not suffer. We have to realise in this matter that headquarters can at any time be in the front line. You cannot have this Civil Service idea of administering the Army and the sooner my right hon. Friend and those at the War Office realise that an Army in the field should be administered on more modern methods without paper, and without large staffs, the better it will be for the Army.
I have spoken of morale and manpower, and I can assure the House that there is a connection between the two. If a man in the Army is always allowed


to feel that his job is destroying the Germans, and he never gets browned off through feeling that his job is merely hampering the war effort, you are going to get a fine Army of men, who will carry this job through with success and bring you to the victory that is so longed for, and so certain.

Major John Morrison: I will not attempt to follow too much the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), though I find myself a great deal in agreement with him, particularly in regard to the territorial boundaries within which regiments are recruited. In regard to his lengthy discourse on excess paper, I entirely agree with him. I want to make one brief point, which I do not think has been mentioned yet in this Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins) spoke of the Army in the more distant future, and he covered a large area; but I want to speak of the Army of to-morrow, by which I mean, the Army of 18 months' time. In his all-embracing speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister did not have time, perhaps, to touch on the subject of the Army Cadet Force. With the Armies of this country abroad, and the Armies in this country, planning to go overseas, the Army Cadet Force and other Cadet Forces are likely in a year's time to become the most important asset that we shall have to the Forces of the Crown. I know there are those in the War Office, urged on by the Minister himself, who are doing all that is possible to popularise and publicise the Cadet Force and its work.
Only the day before yesterday I saw in one of the daily papers that 1,000,000 boys were required for technical jobs in the Army. Those young men going into the Cadet Force should now be given every facility to learn those jobs, and to become keen on them. That can be done only through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow a little more money to be spent on this all-important Force. There are many comparatively small points about the work of the Army Cadet Force, on which, with a comparatively small amount of money and assistance, individual cadet officers, boys and youths, could be usefully helped. I know that officers in the War

Office are doing a great deal, but I hope they will increase their efforts to provide facilities, particularly on the technical side, for the Cadet Force. We shall need a lot of young men in the technical side of the Army, and we must give them some opportunity of learning the jobs. They must be given tools and various sorts of engines, which can quite easily be found among war material which at present may have become somewhat out of date. I would like, in finishing, to congratulate the Secretary of State on his very full review of the whole of the work of the Army, and on the amazing increase in the strength of the Army and its work during his period of office.

Mr. Spearman: I would like to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins). If I understood him aright, he advocated that after the war we should not only have in this Country compulsory military service—I think nearly all of us think that that will be necessary—for the security of the country, but also compulsory service for the State in a civilian capacity, because he considers that discipline is good for individuals. I realise that we have to call on the services of individuals whenever it is necessary for the sake of the security of the State, but I entirely disagree with the idea that the State should take people compulsorily into its service, in the mistaken idea that it knows what would be good for the individual better than the individual himself. I will not take that point further, because I want to bring up another matter, the question of War Office methods of requisitioning hotels. I realise that this is a very small matter compared to the great events which were so vividly described by the Secretary of State, and that what I have to say is unimportant compared to the wise and stimulating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton); but in extenuation I may say I have been struggling with the War Office for 2½ years on this question, and I have shown a patience and forbearance that have amazed me—although that is not perhaps the opinion of the War Office.
I suggest that, even at this late hour, an organisation might be created which would be responsible for all the requisitioning of premises required by any


Government Departments. That would avoid all the overlapping that takes place, and should prevent the anomalies in treatment. At present there is, I believe, a tendency to what I might call preemptive requisitioning, the acquiring of buildings which a Department does not want at the time but may want at some time in the future; a manœuvre, to prevent another Department getting in first. That is very wasteful of public money, and unnecessarily injurious to the public. If only there was one organisation which could deal with all these matters, there would be great economy in effort and in money. Secondly, I would like to stress how much resentment is felt at the anomalies in the treatment meted out by different Government Departments.
I will not weary the House with details, but in Scarborough, for example, I have not had a single complaint from the owner of any of the very many hotels that have been taken over by the Air Ministry or by the Admiralty but I have had complaint after complaint from almost every one of the proprietors of the very many unlicensed hotels and lodging houses that have been taken over by the War Office. I want to make two criticisms of the War Office in connection with this matter. The first is in regard to the way the negotiations have been handled. I have been present at some of the negotiations on these matters, and I have seen letters emanating from the War Office which do not, in my opinion, redound to the credit of that Department. The wording of these letters is much more what one would expect from a bully who wanted to throw his weight about than from a State Department of a democratic country. I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that pegs, however effective they may be in themselves, do not always fit the holes to which they are allotted, and I do suggest that in the War Office there are some round pegs in square holes.
Secondly, I should like to make some criticism of the basis on which these rents are assessed by the War Office. Most of the hotels of which I am speaking at the moment were taken over in 1940. At that time, there was a general feeling of insecurity, following the fall of France, and the ban on travelling to seaside resorts which caused a temporary decline in the demand for hotels. The War Office

appear to me to have used their compulsory powers to snap up bargains for long periods in an artificial market. It seems to me that, where the War Office is competing with other people for an hotel and only buying from a willing seller, then they are right to bargain all they can, but when they are using compulsory powers they ought to take scrupulous care to give a fair price. It does seem most unfair that whether a man is solvent or on the verge of bankruptcy should depend upon the chance of whether his hotel was requisitioned or, indeed, on the date when it was requisitioned. Most of these hotels are owned by small men, who bought them on borrowed money; and so it is not just a question of the inadequate rent meaning that they are not quite so well off as they might be, but it may be a question of whether they can meet their obligations. The War Office reply has always been that they can go to tribunals. That seems to me to be an unrealistic answer altogether, because many of these people cannot afford litigation. If we were only concerned with very big hotel proprietors, who can afford to hold out and to engage the most expensive counsel, I should be not nearly so disturbed, but we are dealing with a lot of small men, some of them with very little resources indeed. I want to ask the Minister if he can give an assurance that it is not the wish of the War Office to use these compulsory powers to obtain property as cheaply as possible, but to give a fair price and one in line with that given by other Departments. I think that if we had that specific assurance, it would relieve people and it might influence War Office officials who are conducting these negotiations.
I want to make one further point on the question of rehabilitation. I want to ask the Minister if he will see that the Departments are prepared to put back these hotels in a satisfactory condition as early as possible after the war. It is inevitable that they should be very much altered and knocked about, and it would mitigate the great hardship inflicted on those who had the bad luck to have their hotels taken over, as compared with those who escaped, if they knew that plans were ready to rehabilitate them at the earliest possible moment. I suggest that that applies also on public grounds. Sir Walter Citrine has recently said that the right way to deal


with those munition workers, in the transition period before other work is available for them, is that they should have a holiday. I think that is a point on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would not disagree with Sir Walter Citrine, because I know how keen he is to promote holidays, especially for weary war workers, but all that depends on whether the hotels and lodging-houses are going to be fit to receive them.
I, therefore, make three requests to the Minister. First, to consider with his colleagues setting up an agency entirely responsible for all requisitioning of premises; secondly, to set up an impartial inquiry to see whether these hotels are getting fair prices, where they have been compulsorily taken over; and thirdly, if he will see that plans are made so that there will be no delay in rehabilitation owing to lack of preparation. The Financial Secretary who I understand is to reply may think I am rather critical of the War Office. I should like to say that I have not been dealing with his Department at all in the matter to which I have referred as I understand that this matter does not come under his rule. I would like to say that I, like almost all hon. Members, have to go to him a great deal on constituency troubles and I would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the great patience and the helpful and prompt manner he and his staff always deal with all these problems. I had thought that it would be easier to get blood out of a stone than to spot efficiency in the administration section of the War Office, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for proving that I am wrong.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I would like to add my admiration to that which we all feel for that wide, roving, romantic review of the war in all its stages which my right hon. Friend gave earlier to-day. I do not want in any way to follow that survey, because it would be obviously impossible, in the very few remarks I am going to make, and so I want to confine them to one rather narrow issue. I want to speak about the great unpaid, the men who tramp the hills and dales, night after night, week after week and year after year, to their parades and drills, to make themselves more efficient, and about their brothers in industry and in the cities, who tramp through the streets in the blackout

and in the raids, even when bombs are falling, to fulfil their duties and fit themselves still more fully for their jobs in the defence of this country. I want to talk about those who have given up their weekends to courses and surrendered their family life, who have given up the cheerful comradeship of the village pubs—the men who man the "Ack-Ack" batteries now, and all those who have supported police and Civil Defence. In other words, I want to speak of the Home Guard.
In referring to this subject of the Home Guard, a very peculiar feature has grown up in our system of Government. Whenever a willing and voluntary helper comes along to a Government Department, he is treated with politeness, but no very great concern, but, once he becomes paid, he enters into a field in which he has every form of protection. I can only imagine that it is due to the dominance of the trade union movement who see that the people who are working and paid are carefully and properly treated. What surprises me, after these three and a half years, like all my hon. colleagues, is that voluntary and unpaid people, because they cost nothing, must therefore be treated as something lower than living things. Because they are apparently unimportant from the financial or Treasury point of view, they must be treated as of no importance.
There are two or three outstanding questions relating to the Home Guard which I want to bring to the notice of the House. I have brought them already to the notice of my hon. and learned Friend, who invariably treats every inquiry with courtesy, even though he does not always give what is wanted. These outstanding questions have greatly perturbed the Home Guard during the past two or three years, and they cannot understand the position. I return again to the question of travel. Take the case of the man with the rank of colonel in the Home Guard travelling with a man who is a captain and who may be his adjutant whom he himself had appointed. The adjutant is paid and the colonel is unpaid. They are going to a course in a communal taxi, but when they reach the railway station an inexplicable influence asserts itself. The colonel must go third-class and the captain must go first-class. This is too absurd and cannot really be explained with any degree of conviction. It is said


that it is the fault of the Treasury, and so I appeal to the Treasury. If a Treasury official—many of whom are in the Home Guard—is of sufficient status he travels first-class, but he has to go third-class as an officer in the uniform of the Home Guard. There is no logic or sense in this discrimination.
I now come to a very sinister matter which the House will appreciate. Some months ago a letter was sent out from the Medical side of the War Office, which had discovered to its horror that five Home Guard officers, who had suffered disability in the course of their duties, had found their way into an officers' convalescent home. That was too much for the War Office, and in consequence a most critical letter emanated from the Deputy-Director of Medical Services at the War Office to all Commands, informing them that this could not be allowed to happen again, and that such officers must be relegated to where they belonged and put into the ordinary ward, in which the private soldier is treated. That action defies any explanation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary have not really sought to explain the position. They always wish to introduce the word "democracy" which in these days is supposed to cover every sin and, no doubt, some hon. Members above the gangway think it does. But democracy has nothing to do with this matter. The point at issue is that the soldiers themselves do not like this discrimination. They like to feel that the officers, whom they may one day be called upon to follow, are treated in the same way as regular officers. Why should there not be this comradeship and friendship between the regular officer and the Home Guard officer? Why should there be a discrimination?

Mr. Silverman: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the situation of which he so justly complains would be completely rectified if only Regular Army officers were compelled to travel first-class?

Sir T. Moore: That point does not concern me. I am speaking on behalf of the Home Guard. If I were speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend or the Regular Army I might have different views to express. I am speaking in my capacity

as a Home Guard officer representing the views of the Home Guard.
I come to a final point which the hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) could have put far more tactfully and persuasively, and that is the question of women and girls who have been nominated to the Home Guard to serve in an auxiliary capacity. There is no doubt about it, they are grand; just as the women in the A.T.S., the W.R.N.S. and the W.A.A.F., they fulfil their functions admirably, efficiently and cheerfully. These women have happily and willingly come forward to help us in the Home Guard. The trouble is that there is not enough of them, and the reason is that they are not allowed to wear any form of covering which designates them as members of the Home Guard. I will give a couple of examples to the House to show the ridiculous attitude adopted by the War Office in this matter. They say there is no cloth. Conductresses and women railway porters and women in the forces of our American Allies can obtain cloth but no cloth is available for these women who come out perhaps for two or three hours at night and on Sundays to do driving, canteen work, clerical and store work in the Home Guard. They are given one of the cheapest forms of plastic brooches, which breaks if you touch it, and that is the only designation they receive. These girls, supposing there was an invasion, would perhaps be driving lorries, taking ammunition to the front, while attired in flimsy chiffon frocks. This sort of thing is ridiculous and the War Office know it well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has not shown the courage and tenacity which he displays on most occasions in fighting the case with the Treasury, the Board of Trade or whoever decides these matters.
There is one other Matter which may perhaps appeal to hon. Friends above the Gangway. These women who come in so cheerfully may be in different categories or walks of life. Some may perhaps have pre-war fur coats, and some cannot afford, and have never had, fur coats, and so you inevitably create a sort of class distinction, which is totally wrong. It does not exist in the mind of the spirit of the women themselves, but is created by the mere fact of the kind of clothing that they wear. That is one of the reasons why


uniform should be given to everyone; it eliminates every form of class distinction. These women should be provided with suitable overalls or uniform; it would put them on to a common basis and it would give an impetus to the recruitment of women for this service, and would satisfy a very reasonable and just claim.
I want to say a few words about the post-war Army. I have already referred to this subject twice in very brief talks on the Adjournment on the question of the continuation of the Home Guard after the war. I ask only that these should receive the closest consideration from my right hon. Friend on the grounds that the Home Guard is a more national force than any Army of a similar kind that we have had in our history. It was born out of stress and danger and patriotism. Therefore, it represents, in its ranks, the best of our civil community, and I suggest it forms the instrument and the basis of a post-war compulsory civilian army. It is no good blinking the facts. We have had two lessons now; we do not need a third. We have relied on sentiment, on idealism, and on appeals to the better instincts of others, but we have now to rely on ourselves. I leave the matter there, hoping that the sympathetic mind of my right hon. Friend will ensure that the words I have said will not be forgotten.

Lady Apsley: I welcome this opportunity, first, to support very briefly my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in every word he says regarding the importance of maintaining the regimental spirit and the morale of our Army at the present time. I remember in the early days of the war the consternation that was caused in a certain West Country yeomanry regiment when 100 postings arrived from Durham. I may say that the only means of conversing in the regiment for the next few months was by means of Morse and the wireless. It is of the greatest importance, in my view, that we should do something to return to the county spirit in the Army which, at the present time, seems to have been forced to imbibe the Corps spirit, a spirit which appears to have been copied from our French Allies and which, in this country is a very poor substitute for a true regimental spirit, founded on pride

in our counties and in the past of our county regiments.
The second point I should like to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend is the importance of bands in maintaining morale. We are a musical nation; we have been since the days of the Elizabethans. Music in our regiments has meant a great deal in the past, and has tended to be lost or to become overloaded by the comparatively modern importations of elaborate tunes and German instruments. If we could return to the traditional simple pipes and fifes and drum bands in our county regiments I believe we should help to maintain, in that way more than in any other way, the magnificent fighting spirit and morale of our Armies, for our soldiers greatly appreciate music, and particularly the music of their own bands when they come out to the front line. I would like in conclusion to associate myself with the congratulations which have been given to my right hon. Friend on the far-reaching, most interesting, and prideful account which he has given us.

Mr. Bartle Bull: My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made a few observations about the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) with which speech I disagree. I will confine myself to one observation on the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. He said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had, as usual, made a good speech. I do not quite agree with that. I think the Minister's speech has been a little better to-day. It has taken the House some little time to train him, but I think that to-day he was very good, and even sitting on the other side, we could hear what he had to say to us.
Observations have been made on the German soldier in the course of to-day's Debate, and I must say that, judging by the last time I saw him, there is nothing very much better than the German soldier. There were also a number of observations about Russia. I think we under-play our hand a little in this respect. Since I returned to England, we have had one or two Red Army weeks, and I have often wondered whether there has been any suggestion in Russia that they should hold a British Navy week there. I could not say more


in my admiration for everything which the Russian troops have done. I do not wish to be misunderstood in any way on that point but, as I say, I think we under-play our hand a little, and I do not think, myself, that we would have been back at El Alamein, except for the number of tanks, planes, and other equipment sent to Russia. I think it should be possible to mention some of these things. I would also like to say what, in my opinion, has contributed to the great success of the Russian Army. I stand open to correction, but, in my view, the first thing that has contributed to their success has been iron discipline, and the second thing is that they have been taught by senior German staff officers who went to Russia at the conclusion of the last war, and who taught them the art of offensive warfare. They have always been good defensive soldiers.
There is one other small point which perhaps hardly bears on this discussion but, if anyone can inform me of the date of the last by-election in Russia, I should be glad to know when it was. The only other thing about the Russian war is that they have in Russia, as we had in the desert, room to manoeuvre. The line is so long that obviously you can get an army round within 100 miles or so, and bring it up to some place so that the other side cannot see where the reinforcing army is going to be put into the front line.
The Secretary of State made a few observations about Hitler's intuitions. Hitler may have gone wrong from time to time lately, but he would appear to have had a number of reasonably correct intuitions in the early days of the war. I would like to suggest that there should be more promotion for younger officers in the field. At the end of a campaign, or at any given time, a number of officers would be sent out from Britain to the Middle East to be given command of battalions, and so on, over the heads of some of the officers who had been there a long time and had fought all through the campaign and—what is vitally important—they were officers whom the men had grown to like and to trust implicitly. I often think it a great pity that that should have been so, I think there should be more promotion on the spot of younger officers who have proved their

worth and whom the troops both like and respect. An hon. Member said that the A.A. gunners in this country were on their toes. I can assure him that the troops in the front line are on their toes all the time, and not just merely during an attack now and again. Otherwise, they would have their throats slit. I think there should be a little more latitude for a man to go into the Service of his choice. I agree that there are different branches of the three Services, yet there are innumerable instances of men of 41 or 42 being called up and younger men of 26 or 27 in other trades who have not yet had a chance of doing any fighting.
As regards regimental tradition—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton from what I have seen of base camps in Egypt there are officers who have not gone out of their way the least bit to see that men go to the regiments to which they properly belong. I know that exists. The Secretary of State may say that I am wrong, but it so happens that I know that I am right. I found that regimental tradition did not just apply to a division but to a company, a battalion or a brigade. It depends upon where the engagement is. The question of regimental tradition is vitally important, and although I am not a proper soldier, and have never really been one, I feel strongly about the question of the value of discipline in the field. If you do not get it in training you will not get it in the field. My hon. Friend also mentioned something about administrative staffs. In Cairo I found that many officers and other ranks were very much too young for these staffs. I do not think anyone should be on an administrative staff unless he has done active service, either in this war or in the last war. We also heard something to-day about the necessity for one third of the Army being kept on the lines of communication, and in the rear to supply troops in the forward areas. I am glad to think that owing to the endeavours of some of us we shall be able to take off these lines some of the people who have been supplying these infernal "V". cigarettes to our forward troops. I was in Abyssinia and Eritrea for a short time, and in my opinion these two countries were extremely well run by A.M.G.O.T. It was extremely bad luck for the Italians that they did not stick to the job which


they have been able to do best in their history—road building. However, it was their mistake, and it is now too late for them to go back.
We have also heard about the lack of mention of a division, brigade or battalion which has been in action. I think it is foolish not to do so. There may be an opinion that our intelligence is better than the German intelligence; the only reason for that is that we patrol at night and that the Germans, being wise, do not. Our patrols bring in a few prisoners from whom we can get information, but the Germans know perfectly well where every battalion, brigade or division is situated, and if a regiment has been in action and has done well it would make a difference to morale in the forward areas if that fact was mentioned. The Germans know all about it; they have our prisoners and dead. All this business about not wearing regimental cap stars or indications of rank is nonsense.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Japanese war, and I hope we shall all remember that conscription must go on when the war with Germany is over. Bring back some of the men from 35 to 40, if you like, and let the younger ones go out. If you do not intend to run the Japanese war on the basis of conscription then I do not know how many men who have done service in the Middle East for so long will volunteer. If you do not continue with conscription it is an open invitation to call the war off once we have done with Germany. If you want a world organisation of some kind after this war the last thing you should do would be not to carry on with conscription against the Japanese.
So much has been said about this war having been started through not having finished the last war that I am sure we shall not be so imbecile as to have that charge laid at our door a second time. The Prime Minister said on 9th February, 1941:
Give us the tools and we will finish the job.
By that I presume he meant we would finish the job irrespective of whoever might be in the war. America has given us the tools and we must help her to finish the war with Japan, just as she is helping us now to finish the war with Germany. So far as the Liberals are con-

cerned I would remind them of what Mr. Asquith said at the Guildhall on 4th September, 1914. Speaking about Pitt's appeal to the nation, he said:
England in those days gave a noble answer to his appeal and did not sheathe the sword until after nearly 20 years of fighting. The freedom of Europe was secured. Let us go forward and do likewise.
He might have said, "Take the Liberals with us," but he did not mention that. May I remind Members what the late Prime Minister said?
It is the evil things we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution and against them I am certain that right will prevail.
All of us will remember the Japanese atrocities which have been committed against British subjects. I am quite certain that we shall keep up our effort to the utmost until we have the Japanese completely out of the war. In addition to not letting down the United States, we must not forget Australian and New Zealand troops who are engaged in the Pacific area. When the war in the Pacific is won we want a continuation of the goodwill on both sides of the Atlantic which has been so well fostered lately. Also we must not forget the debt that we owe to China, who has helped to keep the Japanese at bay for so long.
With regard to bombing, you may soften the German nation but I do not think you will ever get the Prussians or the British down by bombing from the air. The land attack, I am afraid, must go in. The only thing that will possibly influence the Germans is the loss of the war, and then they will be willing to stop it in order to get ready for the next. So let us be strong and be ready for them if they still think it necessary to prepare for a third war in our time. I should like to express my admiration for the regular soldier. I have acquired the greatest respect for the regular officer, N.C.O. and private. They really do know their job, or we should not be sitting about here as we are to-day. The fact that we went back at Alamein was not their fault. We had not the tanks and we had not the proper guns. It was the equipment which was wrong, never the soldier. In a large measure the fault lies at the door of the people themselves but, even more, of the leaders of public opinion. There are few Members of this House who can shirk their share of this responsibility.

Mr. Silverman: In what way could the leaders of public opinion have affected the construction or delivery of tanks?

Mr. Bull: I did not say anything about the construction and delivery of tanks. I was talking of all the leaders, particularly on that side of the House, Liberals and everyone else. Has the hon. Member anything more to say?

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member invites me. If Members on this side had had their way, Hitler would not have been arming for six years with our money and our raw material.

Mr. Bull: No, he would have had an even earlier start. We must be strong after the war. If we have to fight again, which God forbid, we should like our sons to be on the winning side at the beginning and not three-quarters of the way through. Then let us see that those in the Services will have proper jobs when they come back. Nothing was done to stop profiteering in Egypt at the expense of our troops. I wonder if we could not get something done about profiteering in Italy. It would be fairer if officers and men of 30 or 35 could have a reasonable prospect of remaining in the Army as far as administration is concerned after the war. It is one thing to go away for five years when you are 20, but another when you are 30 or 35. I would say again, as I say whenever I get the chance, that I hope we shall as soon as possible increase the pay, allowances and pensions of those in the Services and their dependants.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): A good many points have been covered during the interesting Debate we have had, and I am sure the Members who raised them will not expect me to cover all of them in the time at my disposal, but I promise that any points that I do not deal with will be examined in the light of the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. Lawson), with his well known sympathy and friendship for anything connected with the Army, raised two or three points to which he invited me to reply. The first related to the question of the adequacy of the postal services. I can assure him at once that we should never be satisfied even with the improvements that have been made, but the position since the last

Debate on the Army Estimates has shown a considerable improvement. This time last year sea mails were being sent to our Forces in Egypt, India, Ceylon and East Africa by the long way via the Cape. Transit times were protracted and arrivals irregular. The air-letter service had just commenced. Airgraphs were then the best means of communication, but, like the mails containing air-letters, they were often sent by sea over part of their journey, usually by a long and circuitous route via West Africa and Egypt.
All this has changed following our successes in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, and the subsequent opening of the Mediterranean and the increasing availability of shipping and aircraft space. But we are by no means satisfied with even the improvements in the availability of shipping and aircraft space and, the more we get, the better service we shall be able to give. In fact, however, the average transit time for sea mails, calculating from the date of despatch from the home postal centre in this country to arrival at the overseas base, has fallen from 77½ to 29 days for Egypt and from 75 to 53 for India. Air letters have come down from 26 to 7½ days to Egypt and from 22 to 10½ to India. Airgraphs now take 4½ days from the London airgraph centre to the processing centre at Cairo and nine days to the Bombay station. Transit times for mails from the home postal centre to base post offices in Italy and North Africa are on the whole satisfactory. During December, which was a bad month for flying, air-letter mails took 6½ days, on the average, from despatch at the home postal centre to North Africa and 8½ days to Italy.
Airgraphs reach the processing station at Algiers in four days on the average after dispatch from the airgraph station in this country. It is hoped, however, soon to establish a processing station in Italy itself which will save, of course, several days. At present airgraphs to troops in the Central Mediterranean Force are sent from this country to Algiers in film form and prints are flown to Italian base post offices for distribution.

Mr. E. Walkden: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman say we had a processing station for airgraphs in Bombay?

Mr. Henderson: Yes. A great deal has been done to speed up distribution of mail


from overseas Army post offices to front line troops, and in Italy, on the 8th Army front, instead of going by the long rail or road journey by the east coast, mails are flown to forward airfields for distribution to forward divisions. The general improvement in postal communications with the forces has gone hand in hand with remarkable increases in the volume of traffic. The House may be interested to know that the number of letters, packets and parcels of all kinds handled by home postal centres stood at 2,288,000 a week in January, 1943. The weekly traffic is now 5,356,000, of which 3,300,000 are these 6d. air-letters, which I think illustrates the popularity of the air-letter system.
My hon. Friend put a second question to me with regard to the release of miners. I think I ought to take the opportunity of making clear to the House the system which the War Office is at present operating in regard to the release of miners. No man will be considered for release if (a) he is serving in a unit ordered to mobilise for overseas service, (b) is serving in the Corps of Military Police or the Army Catering Corps, (c) if he was under 36 on 6th October, 1943, except for those who are serving in the Pioneer Corps, in which case he must not have been under 30 on 6th October, 1943. My hon. Friend was interested in the procedure that was adopted, and I think he said there were things which caused doubt in his mind as to the methods of sifting cases of this kind. The procedure adopted is as follows. The War Office is in possession of the number of men serving in this country who are not debarred by the provisions to which I have just referred and who according to the information available on enlistment had former underground experience. Immediate steps have been taken to obtain particulars of the minis in which these men were previously employed and to pass this information to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. There may in addition be a number of other men serving in this country who, although at one time underground workers, were on enlistment working in other occupations. Such men if desirous of being released, and if not debarred by age and the other provisions to which I have referred, may write to their former colliery employers. Any man inquiring should be informed by his Commanding Officer whether or not

he is debarred by age or the other provisions. The collieries, if desirous of employing such men in an underground capacity, should submit requests to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, for transmission to the War Office.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: May I take it that nobody under 36 can get out of the Army?

Mr. Henderson: If he is employed in the Pioneer Corps the age is 30.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does this only refer to soldiers at present in this country?

Mr. Henderson: Yes; it does not apply to soldiers overseas. The House may be interested to have figures as to the number of men released under the earlier scheme for release of miners which closed at the end of 1942. 10,000 men were released from the Army, of whom about 1,000 have since rejoined the Army. Under the present scheme to which I have just drawn attention, which started in October, 1943, release has either been authorised or carried out in some 5,000 cases. That is the position at the moment.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me the cause of the 1,000 men returning to the Army?

Mr. Henderson: I imagine that a number of them, strange as it may seem, desired to rejoin and applied to rejoin, but I should want to have notice of that question really to give a firm answer.

Mr. Foster: The hon. and learned Gentleman said applications are to be made to the colliery managers. There are many complaints that the applicant is not informed of the result of the application. Could he say whether the War Office take any steps to notify applicants personally, by post or in some other way, the result of the application and the reasons for it being turned down?

Mr. Henderson: I would not like to commit myself to the method adopted by the War Office to inform a soldier that his application has been turned down. Of course, if it is done through a Member of Parliament the information is passed to the Member and no doubt he informs his constituent. I could not


say whether it is practicable to inform the soldier at unit level of the reason for an application being turned down, but I should be willing to look into the matter if the hon. Member desires information. My hon. Friend also made reference to the work of the Home Guard and he was followed by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I have had discussions with my hon. Friend on this point elsewhere, and I am sure he knows perfectly well the point of view I have expressed, representing the War Office in this connection, but I was grateful to both my hon. Friends for their references to the service of the Home Guard. During the past year their strength has been maintained, their equipment increased and their general training improved all round.
The increased risk of air raids has drawn attention to the importance of Home Guard anti-aircraft units. We value their help very much, and I know this is the opinion of General Pile and the Anti-Aircraft Command. Training is laborious, and so are the hours of watching when no attack comes. I can tell the House that the Home Guard anti-aircraft units have materially helped in the barrage in London, which was so recently in full action, and in this connection Home Guard units are doing most essential service. It would be wrong for the House to take the view that the importance of the general service Home Guard units has been lessened. They, too, are doing a first rate job under present conditions. We rely in increasing measure on the Home Guard for local defence and forthcoming events may well enhance their importance.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the supply of doctors in view of present and impending operations and asked whether we were satisfied that we had adequate numbers of doctors. I can say in reply that the Army Medical Service, which of course includes the Army Dental Service and Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service, have had to take on very wide commitments throughout the world and have been strained particularly owing to shortage of doctors. The Army Medical Service, for example, have had to accept as an additional responsibility the care of Yugoslav wounded. That is not an unwelcome responsibility, but it is an additional responsibility. It is well known that the number of doctors

available is insufficient to meet the needs of the fighting services and the civil population, and medical personnel have been unavoidably overworked in many instances. They have, however, accepted it cheerfully and with zeal and efficiency, and medical officers, dental officers, nursing officers and other ranks have surmounted all difficulties and produced excellent results. Every effort is made to replace medical officers where possible by non-medical officers, R.A.M.C., in appointments which can reasonably be filled by officers who lack medical qualifications. I would give as illustration the case of a hospital registrar. The Army has cut down its demands for doctors to an absolute minimum, and that minimum is not likely to be supplied. Although we shall be able to meet the demands of the Forces engaged in the future on active operations, other formations of the Army at home will have to go short. The Army at home will not receive the same high standard of medical service which it has had in the past, but every endeavour will be made to see that the sick are well cared for and do not suffer. There are bound to be delays and imperfections in such functions as medical boards, specialist examinations, the answering of complaints, and other administrative activities which are not a matter of life and death. These, I am afraid, must be accepted.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Lieut.-Colonel Gluckstein) raised the question of men who were being trained in the Army and who wanted to know what was being done to ensure that when they left the Army their technical qualifications would be available to help them secure positions in industry. I can only say that that problem is under the consideration of the War Office and that discussions have been taking place between the War Office and the Ministry of Labour. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin), who is not now in his place, has been fairly and adequately replied to by other Members. He made a point about the General Staff and said they had not studied the meteorological reports on Italy before the campaign started. That is such a fantastic suggestion that I do not think I need take up the time of the House in dealing any more with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) raised a number


of points. One related to the question of publicising divisions which were in operational contact with the enemy. He may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend has drawn the attention of general officers commanding-in-chief in the various theatres of war to the need for publicising the divisions and special formations which are taking part in operations. I think that there has been evidence of some improvement in this connection in recent weeks. He then made a point about the importance of maintaining the regimental spirit in postings from the point of view of morale. I thought that he was a little inconsistent, for he argued against having a large number of people forming part of the tail, as he called it, at the base, and then said he thought there ought to be an adequate number of regimental personnel at the appropriate base in order to supply the drafts and fill up the gaps in particular units. Then I understood him to say that he thought in that case this regimental personnel should not be used on fatigues.

Mr. Turton: Is my hon. and learned Friend suggesting that reinforcements are tail and not teeth?

Mr. Henderson: I do not suggest that. I am pointing out that my hon. Friend objected to fighting personnel being at the base camps. Before they go out to the line they have to go through base camps, and he objected to men being there doing fatigues, but somebody has got to do them.

Mr. Turton: The whole object of my illustration was that on that date seven officers and 775 other ranks could be taken off fatigues and put into the battle line and no damage done at all.

Mr. Henderson: They must have being doing something before they were taken to the battle line, and somebody else would have to do the jobs that they were doing. The real difficulty is one of manpower. As my right hon. Friend said, in all previous wars, even in the 1914–18 war, when there was no real shipping difficulty and a much easier man-power position, drafting by regiments broke down completely. In this war the difficulties are increased by man-power problems, limited shipping and the necessity of continually reorganising overseas forces to meet the needs of projected operations. It is because of these factors that the num-

bers to be allotted for maintenance purposes have to be strictly limited. The difficulty which arises in seeking to meet the complaint of my hon. Friend is that if his demands were met and there were a completely regimental system of drafting overseas, it would mean the abolition of the present system of constituting divisions and the holding of large numbers of draftable men for every battalion, because the theory would be that they would be supplied by men of their own battalion.

Mr. Bull: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman means the same regiment, not battalion. There are many battalions in a regiment.

Mr. Henderson: I am well aware of that, but you may have a first battalion of a particular regiment in this country and a second battalion in Egypt. If you have to replace casualties in the second battalion the theory is you are to have men of the same regiment. That would mean having to hold large numbers of draftable men for every battalion of a particular regiment in the theatre of war, plus a permanent staff to administer and train them. I am advised that a similar number would have to be available in the United Kingdom to ensure that the overseas reinforcement unit is kept up to strength.

Mr. Turton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that for the last two years the regional system has been adopted by the Secretary of State and G.H.Q. Middle East? We had the base depot on a regional basis and what we complain of is that men are still switched from one regional branch to another division.

Mr. Henderson: The mere fact that the system has not been too successful does not make the case any stronger for doing it on a purely regimental basis. I am trying to point out the difficulties of meeting the problem on a regimental basis. It has failed, largely because of our acute man-power problem, and we have not found it possible to follow that system.
My hon. Friend then referred to staffs. I think he was in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). The impression left on my mind was that all the formation staffs of the British Empire were recently very much overloaded, and are to-day. I am not so sure that I would disagree as regards the distant past, but


a good deal has been done to reduce the number of officers serving on various staff jobs. Let me take the case at home. Last autumn, the Commander-in-Chief Home Forces and general Officers Commanding-in-Chief Home Commands were invited to review their establishment and to report what cuts could be effected in their staffs. This produced a definite saving. Last December, on the personal instructions of my right hon. Friend, a 2½. per cent. cut was applied to the strength, as at 8th December, at all static headquarters. This also produced a saving. I find that in the Middle East, as a result of the shifting of the centre of gravity of the war to the Central Mediterranean, the Commander-in-Chief was requested recently to review staffs in his own and subordinate head-quarters. He set up for the purpose a strong committee, and the work of the committee has effected a large percentage of saving.

Mr. Turton: What percentage?

Mr. Henderson: I will give my hon. Friend the figures in a moment, and they will speak for themselves. In Persia and Iraq, during recent months, the strength at G.H.Q. has been steadily reduced by leaving posts unfilled. In both the East and West Africa commands there have been gradual reductions, consequent upon the decrease in operational responsibility. I can sum up all the reductions which have taken place during the last six months by saying that the grand total is something in the region of 4,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Might I suggest that when one is on the spot, one sees what happens? It is true that there has been a reduction of staff, but only really about 50 per cent. of what it could be.

Mr. Henderson: That is, of course, a matter of opinion.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Commanders sit on their officers.

Mr. Henderson: Both my hon. and gallant Friend and myself have served in the Army and we know the tricks of the trade, but when a committee is set up of staff officers who know all the inside ramifications of general headquarters, we must leave it to the advice of those very experienced and competent officers who have to deal with the problems. I am afraid that unless we completely abolished

staffs we should never get down to the point when, people would not say there were too many.

Mr. Turton: Did the Minister mean 4,000 officers, or 4,000 all ranks?

Mr. Henderson: Four thousand all ranks, both at home and abroad. That is a substantial reduction, having regard to the point which I mentioned. The same hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me about the visit to the Middle East of the late Financial Secretary to the War Office at the time when the hon. and gallant Member was there. He wanted to know what had happened to that Minister's report. It was not a departmental investigation. It was my hon. Friend the present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply who went out, at the personal request of the Secretary of State. He made his report to the Secretary of State and, in so far as there has been any action, it has been taken on the recommendations which he put forward. I have covered a number of the points which were raised. Any point with which I have not dealt will be examined, as I said before. If any hon. Member who spoke has not been given the information for which he has asked, I shall be only too happy to make arrangements for him to receive it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: There is just one point. Would the Minister encourage as far as possible the delegation of authority downwards, wherever it will work, instead of lower formations having to apply to higher formations to decide small points?

Mr. Henderson: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that a policy of what I may call decentralisation has been going on certainly all the time I have been at the War Office, and I believe during the past three years, and that a good deal has been done in that direction. My right hon. Friend said that the British Army was better to-day than it had ever been; I certainly would agree. We have fashioned a very fine fighting machine, well-trained and well-equipped, one in which not only the nation as a whole but this House can have every confidence. It can have confidence, not only because of the Army's past victories, but because we hope and believe that it will achieve victories in the not too distant future.

Mr. Spearman: Before the Minister sits down, will he consider my request for an inquiry into the rents paid by the War Office to requisitioned hotels?

Mr. Henderson: I cannot make any promise. I have said that every point which has been made, and with which I have not dealt, will be examined.

Orders of the Day — PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Kendall: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House is of opinion that the pay and allowances of members of His Majesty's Army are inadequate to enable them or their families to maintain a reasonable standard of living and that, therefore, it is urgent that immediate increases be made in such payments and allowances.
I feel very deeply the great responsibility that rests on me during this Debate. I have been very fortunate in the Ballot to be able to bring before the House this matter, which affects so many millions of men and women in His Majesty's Forces. I am also fortunate in knowing that I have many supporters on all sides of the House on this subject. The last Debate took place, I believe, on 10th September, 1942, when the Government offered 3s. 6d. a week increase of basic pay for the soldier. I do not think the House was greatly inspired by that 3s. 6d. a week, nor by the additional 1s. given on the children's allowance. During that Debate, the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) brought forward many good arguments and reasons why the men and women in the Armed Forces, and in the Army in particular, should be given a square deal.
I am a little worried on one matter; I have been given to understand from various sources, including the newspapers, that the Government intend to offer some additional allowances for children. They are also, I am given to understand, ready to make some kind of promise that a further study will take place of the pay and allowances at some future date, with the hope that this will satisfy hon. Members in this House and so prevent a Division. I have no desire to divide the House on this issue, none at all, but if this is the intention of the Government I must state here and now that under these circumstances, whilst welcoming any additional allowances given to children, I

cannot accept what the newspapers have suggested might be the Government's intention, and I hope that the House will support me on this. I trust, therefore, that the newspaper forecasts are entirely wrong, and that when the Government come to reply in this Debate they will prove themselves on this occasion generous and big in the treatment of the men and women who are offering their all, life and limb, in the cause of this country and in the cause of the democracy for which we are supposed to be fighting.
All ranks are concerned in this Debate to-day. I cannot possibly deal with all ranks of the Army, but I am sure that many other hon. Members who will doubtless speak in this Debate will deal with specific cases that interest them in particular, and those specific cases of which they have a full knowledge. Therefore, I propose to confine myself to that vast number of privates in the Army who are the average case, those with a wife and two children and who would not benefit, therefore, by war service grants, because, in parenthesis, I must point out that war service grants are for special cases and have nothing to do with the average case. I want to compare the total remuneration of these average privates having a wife and two children with that of a worker with a wife and two children who is employed in an engineering factory.
I am sure that this House will concede and agree that I have some practical knowledge of what takes place in engineering. The basic weekly pay of such a soldier is 21s. a week, from which he makes a compulsory allotment of 3s. 6d. per week to his wife, leaving him with 17s. 6d. a week basic pay. His wife is given 21s. 6d. a week plus the 3s. 6d., making her total allowance 25s. Then a further 18s. is given to the wife for the two children, 9s. 6d. for the first and 8s. 6d. for the second, making a total family allowance for the wife and two children of £2 3s. a week. The Government, in their White Paper of August, 1942, brought forth an argument regarding the 25s. a week that they estimated that a married soldier in the Army was getting in kind. The industrial worker who has been directed from another town into a factory is also given 24s. 6d. a week. I do not believe that either of these two figures have anything to do with the Debate to-day, any more than in 1942,


because let us take the 25s. the Government raised in that Debate in 1942. It is quite valueless, entirely valueless, in respect of that soldier's family, because his home has to be kept going, his family have to be clothed and fed, and no part of this 25s. helps him in this problem or helps his family in this problem.
I would like to bring forward another little point and pass over it very briefly. In the White Paper the Government claimed at that time that they felt that the private single soldier would be getting 35s. a week in kind in the Army. If that be the case surely it destroys immediately the Government's claim that 25s. a week is enough for the wife of a married soldier? Let me go back to the case of this married soldier with a wife and two children. His family's total purchasing power—surely the thing we have to consider is that—is £2 3s. a week and no more. Let us examine what might be the modest expenditures of this family. Let us assume the rent to be 8s. 6d. per week, fuel 4s. a week, insurance or club money 1s. 6d., and light 1s. This totals up to 15s. definite expenditure, leaving 28s. for the wife and two children—for the feeding and clothing of them plus all the incidentals that come into everyone's everyday life, such as a railway fare to go to some place, dentist's bill, medicine and the hundred and one other things one has to deduct from one's total weekly income. When one examines the question from the human angle and what factually one can do and one cannot do, it makes one understand the appalling headaches that the mother of two children, with a husband in the forces, is confronted with in trying to make both ends meet on £2 3s. a week.
Let us compare the soldier's case with that of a married man in civilian life having a wife and two children and who has been brought into a factory and trained, for instance, as a milling machine operator. The basic rate of such a man is 1s. 8d. an hour, but the bonus rate of such a man means that he is able to earn nearly 50 per cent. of his day rate. That would give him another 9d. an hour, and very right and very proper it is. On a 52½ hour week the gross earnings of a milling machine operator would be £7 5s. a week, of which 12s. 6d. is taken away for Income Tax—this is a man with a wife and two children—leaving him with a net income of £6 12s. 6d. a week,

and the man himself is given similar amenities to what the Government pointed out during the Debate in 1942 the soldier was given. He is given free medical treatment in the factory and all kinds of recreational facilities, equally with the soldier, but his purchasing power is £6 12s. 6d. per week, compared with the £2 3s. a week purchasing power of the soldier and his wife at home.
From my own personal experience of these men who work in factories, I can say that they deserve every penny they get, for it is hard work, doing the same operation for 52½ hours per week, day in and day out, lifting in many cases very heavy material, milling it off, and then having to place it ready for the next operation. But the soldier deserves an equal amount of money for the job that he is doing; and danger money could be claimed by the soldier in battle quite as justifiably as by workers in certain categories of industry. [Interruption.] There are many civilians who are risking life and limb handling certain types of explosives, as they are doing in my own factories; and the soldier has the same conditions to put up with. What peace of mind can a serving man and woman have in these days of high expenses after being called away from home to the Services, with the feeling that their dependants at home are not being adequately cared for? There can be nothing more demoralising than the fear that these dependants whom they have left behind might be in want.
When I ask for increases in pay and allowances to be made sufficient to ensure a reasonable standard of life, I mean that they should be sufficient to uphold a proper standard of self-respect in relation to the next-door neighbour, whose husband may be one of those milling machine operators to whom I have referred. It also means that the amount should be sufficient to enable a soldier to maintain his self-respect when he comes into contact with members of the Allied Forces, particularly the United States Forces. I believe that our soldiers should be paid rates comparable with those received by the industrial workers. It might be appropriate to suggest an amount which would be considered fair and reasonable by hon. Members of this House. I suggest that 5s. a day might be a reasonable basic minimum wage for


a soldier, without any compulsory allotment being taken away; that for the wife, 35s. a week minimum should not be considered unreasonable; while the minimum for each child should be 12S. 6d. a week, cutting out all this nonsense of differentiation between the first child and the fourth child.
Can it be supposed that if any of these men and women were represented by the trade unions the present conditions would be allowed to continue? I think not. Consider what happens to those who are now called the "Bevin boys." We can make this comparison, because a ballot is taken, and a boy may be sent into the Army or he may be sent into the mines. What happened when the first lot of Bevin boys was sent to the mines? They found that the pay and conditions were not satisfactory, so they went on strike. What did the Government do? They immediately improved the pay and conditions of these boys. What happened recently in the miners' dispute? Under the Porter Award they have been guaranteed a £5 minimum. Although this is not satisfactory to many miners, it at least shows that the Government can make some gesture, even though it takes place only under compulsion. It is disgraceful that only under the threat of strikes or through the vigorous insistence of trade unions are the conditions of those directed by the Government to various occupations in civil life maintained at a higher level than the Government, presumably, would otherwise be prepared to grant.
The Army are not allowed a trade union: they are not allowed to go on strike; and, indeed, they do not wish to do so. Therefore, is it not very essential that the State should be a model employer in matters of this kind—and indeed in all matters affecting wages and conditions where the State is the employer? How has the State shown itself in the past as an employer? It has been mean, niggardly, and in most instances penny wise and pound foolish. In the House the other day we heard the Prime Minister's very proper glowing tributes to our original small Army who have fought magnificently on so many battlefields in this war. To-day the Secretary of State for War has himself suggested that the postwar Army shall have monetary advantages which would attract the best type of

men from all classes. This is fine; but I cannot help feeling that now, in this time of war, glowing phrases should have a cash value entirely different from that which is being paid at present.
Let me deal with one other category, in one sentence. I heard yesterday of a draughtsman, a temporary civil servant, a single man, who was employed by the Ministry of Works. He was sent into the Army as a draughtsman, in the same line of business, but at lower pay. The Ministry of Works have for over three years been making up this draughtsman's pay, out of public funds, showing that at least one Ministry find that the pay of the private single soldier is totally inadequate. I want to make a special appeal to Members on the other side of the House. I ask them, while this Debate is in progress, to use the strength that their overwhelming voting power gives them in this House to impress upon the Government that this Debate is theirs as much as it is mine, and that they intend this time that the men and women of the Army shall get a square deal, and not just a lot of high-sounding promises or niggardly increases.
A Member on the other side of the House might have been fortunate enough to have got the ballot on this occasion, and in that case, if I had been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, I would have made the same speech as I am making to-day. I would have supported any hon. Member on that side of the House who was fighting for this cause. I say to the Tory Party that this is their great opportunity on this occasion—[An HON. MEMBER: "The last one."]—it is their great opportunity to throw their weight on to the side of a cause with with the great mass of the British public are in deep sympathy.
Lastly, I address myself to all hon. Members of this House to say that, if I must divide the House on this issue, I want them to remember that they will not be voting for me and that they will not be voting against me. They will be voting for the right and justice of giving the men and women of the Army a square deal on this occasion. That is what they will be voting for—not for me. It does not affect my private life at all how hon. Members vote—and I therefore say this to them most earnestly and sincerely. I hope the Government will not force us to divide. It is up to them; they will have


the final word in this Debate on what they are going to do. I am not trying to be at all humorous in closing, but I do not think I could do better than quote the title of Ernest Hemingway's book in asking hon. Members, before they go into the Lobby, and regardless of what the Whips have told them this time, to remember "For Whom the Bell Tolls."

Major C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to support the case so eloquently put by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) and I would like to make it clear that I am not speaking for any Committee of Members of this House. I am not speaking for the Conservative Party Joint Services Committee; neither am I speaking for the Service Members Committee, but solely as an individual Member of the House.
I do not think that, on any political platform, or any political problem, the hon. Member for Grantham and I would ever agree, but I do not regard this question of Army pay and allowances as a political problem. I think it would be most terrible and frightful if ever it became a political issue, and I hope that no hon. Members will make it a political or party problem. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that it is desirable that an immediate increase of pay and allowances should be given to officers and men in the Army. Although I do not believe that there is any extreme hardship, so far as pay is concerned, except in the case of lieutenants and captains, there is no doubt that the Army is inadequately paid. Several hon. Members, before this Debate, came to me and said "It is no good going out for increased pay; you will merely be banging your head against a brick wall. The Government will be completely adamant and will not give way an inch." When I look at the Secretary of State, who made such an admirable, such a magnificent speech, if I may say so, in introducing the Estimates, I see the personification of the brick wall against which I have to bang my head. I remember the lines in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"—I do not want this to be a midsummer night's dream, but a reality—the lines spoken by Quince to Tom Snout, who represented the Wall:

This man, with lime and rough-cast, doth present
Wall, that vile Wall.
Equally, in case the Secretary of State thinks this allusion to be too rude or vulgar, I would remind him that Pyramus spoke in more wheedling terms at a later stage:
Thou Wall, O Wall, O sweet and lovely Wall,
Show me thy chink.
That is precisely what we want the wall to do to-day. We hope the wall will show us some chink and that, at the end of the Debate, we shall not again, like Pyramus, have to say:
Oh wicked Wall, through whom I see no bliss;
Curst be they stones, for thus deceiving me!
The present-day soldier, whether an officer or serving in the ranks, has just sufficient money upon which to exist, plus an occasional very small luxury. Some have not even the money to get an occasional luxury. The older lieutenant, who may be doing a very good job of work—and, in these days of extremely active and mobile warfare, they have very little opportunity of promotion—is not only quite inadequately paid, but is not really given a living wage. I remember, from personal experience when serving full time in the Army, that junior officers had to count every single penny they had to save themselves from financial embarrassment. That is entirely wrong, and I would ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the budget of the captain and subaltern officers at the present time.
The basic pay of a second lieutenant—I do not want to go too much into figures—is 11s. a day, but, through recent changes in the Regulations after our last Debate, the second lieutenant becomes a lieutenant after six months' service, thereby getting an increase to 13s. a day. When he reaches the exalted rank of captain, he gets 16s. 6d. a day. Comparatively, a major is pretty well off, for he receives all £1 8s. 6d.—nearly double the captain and nearly three times that of the lieutenant. I feel that lieutenants' pay should be increased to at least 15s., and that captains' pay should be increased to at least 19s., which should be the lowest rates which lieutenants or captains should receive.
The next point with which I want to deal is the question of allowances to married soldiers. The wife of a married


soldier with no children is, probably, able to supplement the family income by going out to work, and, quite frankly, in war-time, if she is not going out to work, she ought to be. If she does go out to work, the combined pay of the soldier-husband and the wife working at the factory, is sufficient to meet reasonable liabilities, but the husband and wife who are both in industry have a very much higher joint income. It is really not true to say that the married soldier, with no children, has no grievance, because he obviously has got a grievance in that the wife and husband in industry have a very much higher income. I do not want to dwell too much on that because there is a very much harsher grievance to which I want to refer.
The marriage allowance of the soldier with a wife and one, two or three children is completely inadequate. The wife, because she has children, is unable to go out to work. I am one of those old-fashioned people who do not want to see her go out to work. It is just as important for her to stay at home and look after the children, as it is to go out to work. She is unable to meet the liabilities with which she is faced. I would like the House to consider what the wife of a private soldier receives. She gets 18s. a week, plus an allotment of 7s. a week, half of which is paid out of the pay of the soldier by allotment and half by the State, making a total of 25s. This allowance is gradually increased over a period of years, so that after three years she receives a total of £1 12s., unless she is doing work on her own account, and even if she has no children, she may not be doing so, because she may not be fit.

Mr. Bellenģer: In case the House might think that any of that increase comes from the Government, I would point out that none of it comes from the Government, but that it all comes from her husband in increased compulsory allotment.

Major Taylor: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling the attention of the House to that point. Out of the £1 12s. which the wife receives she has to provide all the necessities of life, and for this purpose it is not very much. If she has children, she receives 9s. 6d. a week for the first child, 8s. 6d. for the second and 7s. 6d. for the third and 7s. 6d. for subsequent

children. A wife with a family is probably not able to go—and I would hope that she does not go—out to work, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree that these amounts are not sufficient, in these days of high rents and high costs for clothing, food and everything else, to keep a wife and three children.
I turn to the case of the junior officer, The subaltern or captain, if he is on the higher rates of pay, receives 4s. a day for his wife and 7s. a day for a wife and one child, 8s. 6d. for a wife and two children and 1s. for every subsequent child. A wife with three children would receive £2 19s. 6d. with which to feed and clothe them and find somewhere to live, and we all know that in these difficult times it is not easy to find somewhere cheap to live. The subaltern and the captain, because they receive such a small remuneration, are entirely unable to help their wives and families further out of their pay.
The next hardship concerns the sick or wounded soldier in hospital. At the present time, if, a soldier is sick for 21 days, he loses his temporary or acting rank and has to revert to his substantive rank, which means that he also loses the pay of the higher rank. A soldier who is wounded is allowed to retain his acting or temporary rank for a period of three months before reverting to his substantive rank. These are both extremely hard cases, and I rather feel that the sick and the wounded soldier should be treated in the same way. Neither is to blame. A man may go out on an operation and get influenza or be unfortunate enough to be hit by a bullet. It is not the man's own fault. In either case he has to go to hospital, and after the prescribed period he loses his rank and his pay. An officer may often drop two ranks, from being a major to a lieutenant, after 21 days in hospital, or three months if he is wounded, and may lose an enormous amount of pay—from 28s. 6d. to 13s.—all through no fault of his own. I have received a letter from an officer, who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons, written from a hospital in North Africa, and I would like to read extracts to the House. He writes:
This naturally originates with what might be considered possibly a personal injustice, but it would appear to be the outcome of a policy affecting many in my circumstances. Out here, if a commanding officer is so stupid or


unfortunate as to get himself wounded, on recovery he is put into a pool and must await a chance of getting another command. He does not go back to his battalion to resume command. This has, or is liable to have, many unfortunate repercussions: first, financial loss to the commanding officer, who loses his command pay, and after three months"—
and this applies to all ranks—
although fit physically and mentally, loses his rank, with very heavy financial loss, and all because he is stupid enough to get wounded.
The writer of that letter, who has been a Regular since 1915 and who commanded a battalion in France with great distinction in this war and obtained the D.S.O., subsequently commanded a battalion in Africa, yet, because he got wounded, because he showed dash and initiative in battle—which is what we want from officers in command—he was discarded or by-passed. Why should he lose his pay and future prospects? It is grossly unfair to those whose living this is and who have precious little to which to look forward in post-war years. It is a terrible injustice to penalise a soldier who gets wounded in this way. The troops are extremely irritated by these Regulations. I wonder what a Cabinet Minister would have to say if, after being sick for 21 days, he lost his rank and his pay. If that had happened, the Deputy Prime Minister would now be Prime Minister.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Heaven forbid.

Major Taylor: But that is what happens in the Army. The second-in-command probably gets the command because the commanding officer has been sick for 21 days and has lost his rank and pay.

Mr. Brown: But the Army's second-in-command is working on the basis of merit.

Major Taylor: I wonder whether the private employer would ever be able to get away with such a rule as that. There would be such an outcry against it that he would never be able to do it.
Now I come to my general proposals regarding the pay of the Army. I have tried to be reasonable so far in any demands that I have made. I really have not tried to be greedy but to show that, although immediate increases of pay are desirable from the point of view of justice and fairness, only in certain cases are they an absolute necessity, and I have

tried to bring up those eases to-day. But I believe, from the point of view of justice and fairness, there should be a general increase. I have, however, two alternative suggestions to make and I hope that they will receive the earnest consideration of the Secretary of State not only for the War Department, but for the other Service Departments as well. This really affects all three Services. The first is, that an immediate increase of pay should be given, but not in the form of an immediate cash payment such as the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment suggests, but in deferred pay, so that at the end of the war those who are now serving will have an additional nest-egg to enable them to undertake civil employment and be able to find suitable employment after demobilisation without having to starve or go on the dole.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend, does that alternative not destroy the whole of his case? Is he not now saying that the men do not need this increase?

Major Taylor: I am saying that they should have an immediate increase of pay but, at the moment, the troops fighting in Italy do not want to spend their pay. The prudent soldier, if he had an increase today, would put something by until the end of the war.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: What about the children?

Major Taylor: We are now discussing pay and not allowances. I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he can make any statement about the question of gratuities at the end of the war. All those in the Services are banking on getting gratuities and, although I believe no actual promise has been made about gratuities, I can assure my right hon. Friend if gratuities are not given it will be regarded, rightly or wrongly, by those who are now serving as a breach of faith. I would also like to say that the gratuity should not be regarded as having anything to do with pay; it is a capital payment and should not be confused with any deferred pay which I have suggested.
I want to mention an alternative proposal to deferred pay. I myself think it is rather a better proposition which I hope will commend itself to the Secretary of State and to the House. It is that after


demobilisation, every man in the Services should be given a period of holiday with pay—six weeks or two months, or some such period. The advantages of such a suggestion are that it would not be necessary for the soldier who is demobilised to jump into the first job that presents itself and thereby become a round peg in a square hole. Secondly, if no job is immediately available, he would be able to exist without going on to the dole and would be able to settle down, to try to find suitable employment during that six-weekly or two-monthly period. I want to be perfectly clear that this period, which I would like to call a holiday with pay, would not debar him from accepting civil employment immediately, in which case, of course, he would get his Army pay in addition for the period of holiday with pay. If the suggestion were adopted, there might then be no necessity to increase pay at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. and gallant Member seconding the Amendment?

Major Taylor: This is an alternative method of increasing his pay. At the present time, although the war is by no means won, all eyes are turning to the post-war period. The Regular officer does not know to what he has to look forward in the post-war years. Although the War Office are trying to get people to stay in the Army, as a career, in the post-war period, they have not yet said what the conditions of service are to be for the post-war soldier. The temporary soldier is saying to himself, "What is going to happen to me, if I survive this war? What will be my position in comparison with the fellow who was directed into industry or into the mines? What will be my position in comparison with a fellow who was allowed to continue, for some reason or another, his civil employment?"

Mr. Shinwell: The Government scheme for full employment.

Major Taylor: As my hon. Friend has said, there are no trades unions in the Army and I believe it is up to hon. Members in this House—there is no other way in which it can be done—to see that the common soldier, without whose courage and effort this war could never be won, is given justice during the time he is a soldier and when he ceases to be a soldier.

Mr. Bellenģer: I think it is my duty at the outset of my remarks to pay a tribute to the very moderate speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) when he moved this Amendment. I do not think the Government have any cause to complain at the way he presented his case. He presented it fairly, and I think adequately. I can say at the outset of my remarks that I shall have to disagree with the conclusions which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) arrived at in his otherwise very good speech. Although we are only discussing the Army to-day, we know very well that when the Secretary of State rises to reply, he will speak for all three Services on this matter, and, quite frankly, we are determined to see that the men in those Services are not put in an inferior position compared with those who have been fortunate enough to have been directed by the Minister of Labour into industrial employment.
There are various comparisons that could be made. I am going to make what I think is the fairest comparison. I may have to mention the United States Army and the Dominions Armies, but I am not going to base my case on the rates of pay that they get. I mould like to draw the attention of the House to something that was said in the last Debate on this mattes, by the Minister of Aircraft Production who was then Lord Privy Seal. He spoke for the Government in September, 1942. Incidentally, it seems to me a very cumbrous may of settling the pay of our fighting men and women to have this series of Debates and arguments and bickerings and bludgeoning of the Government in order to get a few pence extra. There must be a better way, I should think, and I am going to make a suggestion in that respect later. The Minister of Production said:
It is the duty of the Government to keep the matter under constant review.… All three Services have very able advocates for their cause within the Government itself in the persons of the Ministers responsible for those Services.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is going to reply to this Debate and I would like him to give a reply to this question. What has he, in his capacity as Secretary of State for War, been doing to keep this matter under con-


stant review? How far has he been an advocate for the men and women under his control for increased pay and allowances which the House is bringing prominently to his attention to-day? I happen to know, quite unofficially—and I expect other hon. Members know it too—that the War Office have been considering this matter. I have a shrewd idea of some of their recommendations, but what I want the Secretary of State to tell me is: What has happened to them? Where have they gone? Would we ever have heard of some of those conclusions which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will mention to-day, if Members of Parliament, by the luck of the ballot, by a lottery, had not been able to bring this matter to the Floor of the House? A predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman once told this House that he would "come clean" when he made his maiden speech on the Army Estimates, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should do the same to-day; otherwise, I think we shall have very good cause to doubt his bona fides in this matter.
Then on the occasion to which I have referred the Minister of Aircraft Production, making proposals for certain increases, also said:
… the rates of pay should be stabilised at the new level so long as prices remain at their present level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th September, 1942; cols. 376–384, Vol. 383.]
That was in 1942. Since then, the general price level has increased—perhaps not so much for rationed goods but everybody knows that uncontrolled goods, or goods that are not rationed, have shown an enormous increase in price, an increase out of all proportion to what the Ministry of Labour tell us in their index figure, is the increase in the cost of living. Therefore, on that ground alone, I think that the House has a case to-day which the Government must answer. The Minister of Aircraft Production on that occasion attempted to show that there could be no fair comparison between Service and industrial rates of pay. I, for one, reminded him then that that argument did not hold water, because what had happened before that Debate? The Government issued their famous—or perhaps I should say, "infamous"—White Paper, in which they attempted to show that the rates they were paying to Servicemen were, at any rate, comparable with the rates that were being paid in civil life. They did not say

that it is so in actual fact, but they said that a married or single man would save so much—I think it was 35s. in the case of a single man and 23s. or 25s. in the case of a married man—on clothing, transport and other things which he would have to pay for himself in civil life. The Government themselves, in their own White Paper, took a somewhat similar comparison to the one I wish to make although theirs was rather distorted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham mentioned that the Army had no trade union to speak for it. I suggest that no trade union would allow matters of pay rates to be argued on the Floor of the House as we are arguing this matter to-day. All through the war we have not abrogated the right of the industrial worker, through his properly constituted organisation, to raise issues like this and settle them outside this House. Seldom are matters like this, in relation to those people, brought into this House. Yet to-day this is our only method of voicing the grievances of the people in the Services.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Would not the hon. Member agree that it is entirely legitimate, considering that the Armed Forces of the Crown are in the employment of the State?

Mr. Bellenģer: I have seldom heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) having to argue about the rates of pay which should be paid to those in the Civil Service whom he represents. Those rates are settled outside.

Mr. W. J. Brown: So far as civil servants are concerned, they have two weapons—one, is the ordinary weapon of direct negotiation with the employer and the second, if they do not get a fair result, is for me to raise the matter here. What I would like to see is the Army enjoying precisely the same rights as the Civil Service.

Mr. Bellenģer: We have Service men working side by side with civil employees in Government establishments. Many of these establishments employ thousands of men in uniform, alongside their colleagues who are in civilian clothes. The civilian can air his grievances through his union, whereas the man in battledress has his lips sealed by King's Regulations. I will suggest later a proposal, which I hope will meet with some consideration from the


House, that the question of pay and allowances should be settled in a different way. As to the comparison on which I base my case, it is the comparison between Service and industrial earnings. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham quoted what he said was a specimen budget. I have no such specimen but I will take something from the Government's own figures, from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" which, each half year, publishes a set of figures derived from the average earnings of over 6,000,000 workers. Taking this set of figures at the pre-war basis, in October, 1938, the average earnings of a man over 21, employed in a Government industrial establishment, were £3 15s. 3d. a week. In January, 1943—and no later figures have been published—that amount had increased to £6 1s. 11d., and I am informed by the Minister of Labour that even that figure has increased during the last year. As hon. Members know, the basic rate of the soldier was 2s. per day in 1938 and is now 3s. He is getting family allowances which are, I admit, a considerable increase on the pre-war figure and in all fairness to the Government I am bound to say that these allowances are free of Income Tax. If he is lucky, the soldier can get a War Service Grant of anything up to £3 a week. That is what the Ministry of Pensions tells us, but what are the facts? I think that less than 10 per cent. of those in the Army are receiving a war service grant.

Sir J. Griģģ: Completely wrong Nearly 50 per cent. of the married people receive it.

Mr. Bellenģer: I trust the Minister will let me make my case in my own way. I say that only about 10 per cent. of those serving in the Army to-day are getting a war service grant. I am not arguing only for the married people but for the single people as well, many of whom, as I shall attempt to show, have obligations just as onerous as those of the married men. The average war service grant is about 15s. a week. Higher rates of the grant would go mainly to officers. If you wanted to get a fair comparison between the rates of remuneration of industrial workers and Service people, I think the best indication, if we could get it, would be to find out the amounts of small savings which have been made by the industrial worker

and by Serviceman respectively. I am sure it would be found that the Serviceman and his wife or his dependants would be a long way behind the civilian. If the House wants proof of that let hon. Members refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister when he broadcast his famous Four-Year Plan some time ago. What did he say? He talked of several millions of people after the war who would have a stake in the country to the extent of £200 or £300 of small savings. I am sure he was not referring to Servicemen. Obviously he was referring to civilians.
Another point that I should like to bring prominently before the House is the almost chaotic maner—I can find no other word for it—in which the Army settles its pay rates. I have here Part 2 of Army Book 64, which is the serving soldier's pay book. Although I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making the Army pay rates a little bit more intelligible to the average soldier, when he opens it he finds that, if he enlisted before October, 1925, he is on one rate and if he enlisted after 1925, as most serving now in the Army have done, he is on a different rate. If he is still more curious he finds that, because he has enlisted or been called up to serve in this war, he is paid less than those who enlisted before 1925. There are two sets of payments for men doing the same job to-day. I agree with the suggested basic rate of 5s. a day—I have a suspicion that even in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department that figure coincides with some figures that they have in mind—and he should not have to Wait for that until he has served for three years. At present if he has served for three years he has Class 1 rates of pay, which bring him up to 4s. 6d., and if he has special proficiency he is raised to Class 1A, which brings him up to 4s. 9d. Yet after six months' training he is supposed to be proficient and maybe sent to fight overseas. He is denied Service increments because he has only six months' training.
Even this figure is below what is paid by our Dominions to their soldiers. Cannot this country at least observe the same standards as our Dominions? The figure of 35s. for wives is not too great, though it may seem so to some hon. Members opposite. It may be said that if she had 35s. the wife, especially if she had no children, could earn more. So can the


civilian's wife. Are the wages of civilians based on what their wives can go out and earn? Why should the soldier's wife have to submit to these conditions merely because she can go out and earn money? Let us pay the soldier sufficient to maintain the wife in a decent manner without her going out to work, although I agree that during the war obviously, we have to mobilise the married women without children. They will go out even if you pay 35s. None will shirk their duty, because their husbands are serving.
There is another factor that we must never forget in the case of the married men. The married woman has to keep the home going whether she goes out to work or not. The husband expects her to do so. She has rent to pay. The mere fact that the husband has joined the Army does not reduce the rent. In the case of war widows the Ministry of Pensions grant a supplementary pension for rent of anything up to 12s. Why should we not observe the same kind of feature in paying the wives of serving men? May I quote something that happened in my own constituency. I was reading the report of the Housing Committee and I was surprised and shocked to notice what two councillors said. They were discussing arrears in rent for council houses. One said that, if the items were looked into, it would be seen that the great majority were Service people. The other councilor said that the borough treasurer had tried his best to get the money collected. If the Service men were taken out the arrears would be comparatively small. What better comment could there be on the inadequate rates of pay of Service men and on the distinction between Service men and civilians?
As regards children's allowances, I do not think anyone has mentioned a figure. I have one in my mind of 15s. a week with no diminution for the second, third or fourth child. It is a fallacy that the third or fourth costs less than the first. I have practical experience of that, because I have four children, and my wife has never asked me for less as the others have arrived. Generally it has been more. The present rates are 9s. 6d., 8s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. In justification of my figure I am going to give two comparisons. If a child is evacuated, the local authority pays a billeting allowance of 10s 6d. in the case of a child under five. If the

child happens to be 14 to 16 it is 13s. and if 17, 16s. 6d. That is without the cost of clothing and all the other things a child wants. The Ministry of Health recently made an arrangement with the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association whereby when a mother is expecting another child, or where there is illness of the mother, where space is available, they are taken into Ministry of Health hostels. The Ministry asks the Association to pay 11s. a week for each child, with no diminution for the second and third. The irony of the whole situation is that the Association endeavours to get 11s. a week from the mother, though she is only receiving 9s. 6d., 8s. 6d. or 75. 6d. a week. In most cases she cannot pay, so a charitable organisation has to make it up.
When we come to the case of dependants and mothers, especially widowed mothers of single men, in most cases an even worse situation is disclosed. I do not much care for reading letters, which, like the Government figures, can be so manoeuvred as to present all possible angles of view, but this letter puts my case adequately.
I have one child, a boy. I did my best to keep him at high school.
Many of these women have been trying to do the same thing. The terrible thing is that it is not the very poorest who are penalised, but those people who are trying their best to give their children a good education. She goes on:
He won a scholarship during the years when there was very little money about here, the years when Wales was suffering from depression. He gets a job which he likes very much. There is not much money until he is 18. What happens to him then? He is called up. I am left with nothing at all unless he allots me 75. a week, which he did. My husband is a cripple from the last war with a meagre pension. He has a small business, motor-hire. He cannot do any other job. He cannot go into a factory and earn much money, because his disability requires him to have a sitting job. Living round me are many with boys and girls, three or four, all at home earning good sums of money.
Then she puts in brackets "Good luck to them." She goes on to say:
I am 50. I look after my father 80 years of age, my stepmother 80 years of age, my uncle 81 years of age, all on old age pensions.
A very famous member of the Tory Party, Lord Beaconsfield, once wrote about the two nations in this country. It is true. It is only when we get these letters and we


can see into the minds of these families, that we can understand the penury, even the under-nourishment, certainly the hardship caused by, the present operation of the dependants' allowances by the Service Departments. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) has dealt with the junior officers' case so I will not elaborate that but will only say that I support him entirely.
The last point I want to put concerns the women. Hon. Members know that the women members of the Army are paid two-thirds the rate of their male colleagues. We have heard the Secretary of State talk about the wonderful work girls are doing on operational sites. Many of them are relieving male colleagues of work so that the male soldier can go and fight. These girls on operational sites are doing the same work and should get the same pay as their male colleagues. The Government had to face a hostile vote in this House on the question of equal pay, but to-day I limit my claim for equal pay to women in the Services who are on operational duties or in trade categories. There is a proposal I want to make to the House which I hope will be received sympathetically by the House and by the Government. We ought to take this recurring bargaining, almost auctioning on occasions, out of the atmosphere of party politics. I am bound to recognise the responsibility of the Government, and I do not wish to relieve them of that responsibility, but at the same time I do not desire to mitigate in any way the responsibility of this House to settle these matters.
To-day I have only touched the fringe of the anomalies. I could tell the House of at least 20 anomalies that ought to be settled, but which cannot be settled in two or three hours' Debate. I suggest that the Government should consult the House far more effectively. I think that it ought to be possible for a Committee of this House, composed of men and women who know the subject intimately, and drawn from all quarters, to go into this matter in detail, having the Service Ministers present at their meetings and being able to consult the permanent officials from the Service Departments. That Committee should make recommendations to the Government. It would

be for the Government or the House to decide whether they should be adopted. If the Government set up some Committee like that, which could investigate all these matters and make recommendations, it might prove an effective way of settling many of these problems which we are constantly bringing before the House and are constantly told are being considered by the Government.
Writers like Kipling have written of the glorious deeds of the soldier. Books galore have described the epic events that have been performed by those of whom it may be said:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die.
In each of these works is recorded the shameful treatment that we have meted out to those who have answered their country's call in her hour of need. Let us once and for all expunge these methods of parsimony from our King's Regulations and Pay Warrant. Let us remember that "fine words butter no parsnips." "Salute the soldier" is a mockery if merely used as a slogan by a war savings committee. More than words are required. I call on the Government to acknowledge by action—and quick action—the heroic work which is being performed by millions of our men and women scattered all over the world.

Captain Bernays: The hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) quoted very effectively from "A Midsummer Night's Dream." I hope my right hon. Friend when he replies will not counter with "The Winter's Tale." I am bound to confess that the Government in the past have shown themselves alive to obligations to the Army. At the beginning of the war, after a man had made his marriage allotment, he was left with 7s. He now has 19s. That, after all, is a substantial advance. On the last occasion when this subject was debated the then Lord Privy Seal, now Minister of Aircraft Production, used these significant words:
The Government unanimously take the view, and in this the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully concurs, that in such a question as that which is at present under discussion the primary consideration is justice for the men and women in the Services and not any mistaken ideas of economy. The gallantry and endurance of these men and women can certainly never be measured in terms of money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th September, 1942; col. 376, Vol. 383.]


I think it is fair to say we need not appeal to the hearts of the Government in the matter. Their hearts are in the right place. What we have to show the Government is that our pleas for increases in pay and allowances are fair and reasonable. This is no new-found interest in fair allowances on my part, for as long ago as 1937 I seconded a similar Motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. What I knew about pay and allowances in those days it is difficult to recall. I hope that I know more now.
I would like to say at the outset, even though it may be unpopular in some quarters, that I do not believe there is a strong case for a flat increase in pay. I do not believe that the single soldier has much cause for grievance—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think so, and I have some experience in this matter. During the nine months that I spent in the ranks I found it possible to live on the pay that I received across the pay table, excluding the occasions when I came up to attend to my Parliamentary duties. [Interruption.] I am only giving this as a personal experience, and I will say from my limited experience that the pay for the single soldier, though by no means lavish, is generally sufficient for the needs of camp life. I said at the beginning that this may be unpopular, but it is my view and I intend to put it forward. With regard to the married man without children, if his wife is in good health and can go out to work there is not a very great case for an increase.

Mr. Sloan: Did the hon. and gallant Member's wife go out to work?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, and I found what a difference it made when she started having children and did not go out to work. That is the point I am coming to. It is when there are children or when children begin to come that anxieties arise. The wife can no longer work, and the income of the family is halved at the very moment when there are new and great drains upon it. I feel, and this is my plea, that the children's allowances are inadequate and that the family incomes, where the head of the household is a soldier, are unfairly disproportionate to the family incomes where the head of the household is not in the Army. Children's allowances are not sufficient and

too many men have grave anxieties about the conditions in their home. That will be confirmed by other serving officers in the House.
It is my job on occasions when I am orderly officer at my headquarters to visit the detention barracks, and I am very concerned to find how many men in detention are men with families. I suppose that absence without leave is the biggest reason that brings a man into detention. It is disturbing to find in how many cases the story of these men is that they went absent because of family troubles at home. It is difficult to give figures in this matter, but I would say, from such investigation as I have been able to make, that of the men in detention about 65 per cent. are there for persistent absence without leave. Of these men about 60 per cent. are married men with families. This is confirmed by the Prime Minister's inquiry into detention barracks in the Report of which stress is laid on the need for welfare work before the men get into detention. The Committee emphasised the importance of good welfare work in the units, and they considered that if the admirable notes issued to officers by the Adjutant-General under the heading "Soldiers' Welfare" were carried into effect, perhaps as many as 50 per cent. of those soldiers under sentence would never be sent to detention. That is a reflection on management in the Army, but I know how keenly the War office has been taking up that matter and how much it has done to improve it. At the same time, I would like to suggest that what an officer can do for men with grave family troubles is comparatively little, apart from an application for a war service grant. There is a danger that an officer is becoming, in regard to some of his men, a Poor Law investigator, for he has to spend an enormous amount of time on these personal cases, time that is taken off training and his other regimental duties.
I do not want to labour the difference between Army and civilian rates of pay. After all, there are compensations in the Army. It is for many men a grand life. [Laughter.] I do not think that jeer is going to be helpful to morale. Frequent requests are made by men for temporary transfer to the War Reserve in order to go back into civilian life for a time. It is not, in the great majority of cases, that they wish to evade their military responsibility.


It is that many of them have got into debt and they feel that it is only by going back into civilian life for a time that they can wipe off their debts. I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on the question of rent arrears, which confirms what I am saying. The family allowances are not sufficient and there should be a substantial increase. The problem concerns officers as well as men, and I would like to reinforce the plea that has been made for junior officers up to and including the rank of captain. Some of them are experiencing the whip of real poverty. Again, I am not pleading for a flat increase in pay. I believe that the pay is generally sufficient for the single man and for the married man without children. It is when they have children, or start to have children, that the shadow of anxiety falls across their lives.
After all, they have to maintain not merely their wives and families but to live upon the money, and there are certain inevitable incidental expenses which are necessary to maintain their bare position as officers. I have been furnished by a brother officer with an actual monthly budget, and if the House will allow me I will read it. This officer has 13s. a day. He has a wife and two children, for which he receives 8s. 6d. a day. The total that he receives is £32 5s. a month. That seems a very substantial sum, but how does it go? There are home expenses: rent, £3 12s 6d. per month; furniture on hire purchase, £5 7s. 6d.; insurance, £1 12s. 6d.; coal, £1 6s. 0d.; food for one of the two children, £6 10s. 0d.—a very small amount; school fees, £2 3s. 0d.; incidental expenses 15s.; and clothing for wife and two children, £2 3s. 0d. That amounts to £24 10s. 0d. Then there are his own expenses, due to the fact of his living apart from his family. His mess bill, including mess subscriptions, is £1—very low. His batman receives 10s., laundry 10s.—absolutely down to the minimum—and cigarettes £2 15s. 0d. This may seem a great amount, but it only works out at ten cigarettes a day. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the price of them"? He gets 40 at the pre-Budget price and then he has to take 20 in the usual way. I smoke more than that myself. He is left, for incidental expenses, with £2 5s. 0d. per month. So, he receives £32 5s. 0d. and he spends

£32 10s. 0d. Hon. Members may question some of these items, but I think they are generally fair.

Mr. Huģh Lawson: Does this officer pay Income Tax?

Captain Bernays: Yes, he does. He is left with little more than 10s. a week pocket money, rather less than many office boys are spending to-day. I would like to make three observations on that budget. Firstly, I believe it reveals a state of affairs which is not sufficiently appreciated by the War Office. I understand that the War Office expect an officer naturally to contribute the whole of his family allowance, but do not expect him to contribute more than two-sevenths of his net pay. An officer is expected to maintain his family on £18 a month; it cannot be done. This officer's accommodation is pretty low, £24 10s. a month, but instead of contributing two-sevenths of his pay he is contributing rather more than two-thirds. I would also suggest that no margin is left for sudden liabilities like illness, or confinement, or a pram, or even such ordinary contingencies as a burst water pipe or the renewal of a saucepan. These expenses have to come out of previous savings, made in civilian life, and such savings are being gravely depleted, if they have not vanished altogether.
Many young officers will leave the Army very much poorer than when they went into it. Some junior officers, too, are probably worse off than senior N.C.Os. I have further figures here. Talking of basic pay, and not of family allowance, a second-lieutenant gets roughly £200 a year. A warrant officer, Class I, gets £255. A warrant officer, Class II, £282. The warrant officer Class I is substantially better off than the officer, who has expenses not borne by the N.C.O. For instance, he has higher mess bills. He has to renew his clothing and there are certain articles of equipment which he has to purchase. In consequence of that, there is evidence that there is reluctance on the part of senior N.C.Os. to accept commissions. If that is so, it is a serious matter. The need for officers is urgent. The ranks have been combed and re-combed. The only available source of supply is from among the senior N.C.Os. I believe we shall not get them unless we tackle promptly this problem of the children's allowance. I know that it can be


argued that officers, unlike warrant officers, can expect promotion, but promotion comes slowly, particularly in static units. The only promotion which is worth while is that salmon leap between captain and major.
I come to the problem of war service grants. I would like to say from experience that they have been efficiently and generously administered, but they were framed to deal with the exceptional case. The difficulties both of men and of officers, who are married and have children, are too great and too general to be met by any ad hoc grant from public funds. In any case, nobody can really say that the arrival of a child is an especial hardship which ought to be met by a grant from public funds, subject to a rigorous means test. That really cannot be maintained and ought not to be maintained. There is some evidence that all this is leading to a restriction of families. I have found in the House, and in the officers' mess, instance after instance of men who are either not starting a family or are not enlarging an existing family because the financial sacrifice expected of them is too great.
This is a state of affairs which the Government will ignore at their peril. After all, the men in the Forces are presumably the fittest men in the nation. In one respect an officer's position is worse than that of a man. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and some other hon. Members, including myself, have been pleading strongly for a maternity grant, and that was conceded by the Government, but officers were excluded from it. I hope that that will be put right. I hope that the Government will not tinker with this question. I hope they will come forward with a substantial increase in the children's allowance. We were invited in moving terms to-day to salute the soldier, yet saluting the soldier is not enough. Let us manage so that, later, we can look him in the face and tell him, what he would much prefer to hear, that while he saved the Empire, his employer saved his place and his mates—that is you and I—looked after her.
We are in process of moving you out of the Chair, Mr. Speaker. This is the historic occasion for the redress of grievances. I hope that before you leave that Chair to-day, we shall have had a definite declaration from the Government that

they will consider the representations we have made to them promptly and sympathetically. Such a declaration would bring aid and comfort to those now in action on our many fronts and to those at home now bracing themselves for the supreme ordeal of the grand defensive.

Mr. Shinwell: I confess there is little advantage to be gained by arguing all round this question. It is, for me, a simple proposition: Is the pay of the soldier adequate? If the answer from hon. Members is in the affirmative, that is an end of the matter. Are the allowances provided for the wives and children of serving men sufficient to enable them to live in comfort? I repeat, if hon. Members say "Having regard to this factor and that," and cloud the issue, then, clearly, we might as well not have had this Debate. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham Kendall) for having raised the Debate, and, I add, for his forthrightness. He certainly knew what he wanted, but since then those of us who found our spirits rising have been almost completely disillusioned. There is no unanimity among hon. Members on the direct issue posed by the hon. Member for Grantham. It is not enough to divert hon. Members from the main issue by raising questions of long-term policy. The hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) spoke of deferred pay. Well, if we are constantly to be offering—excuse my bluntness—pie in the sky for the men who are now—

Major Taylor: This is pie in the bank.

Mr. Shinwell: —ready to make the supreme sacrifice, in my judgment it is an insult to those men and to the nation. In any event, have we not been promised by the Government full consideration of reconstruction proposals, including a policy of full employment for the men when they reurn? Why concern ourselves about deferred pay, for in any event what can it amount to? Does anybody really imagine that the amount of deferred pay that would accrue to a serving soldier as a result of the proposal that the hon. and gallant Member made would enable him to set himself up in business and compete with the monopolists? It is absurd.
As for my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) I am bound to say to him, with the best will in the world,


that if we are, as a result of this Debate, to set up a committee and then proceed to negotiate on the basis of further investigations this war may well be over before we reach a decision. That is not the issue at all. I repeat, is the pay of the serving man adequate? If it is, let us go home. The fact is that it is not adequate, and every hon. Member in this House knows that it is not adequate, in spite of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays), who informed us so blandly that when he was a serving soldier, a private or it may have been a lance corporal, before he reached his present exalted position in the Forces, he was able to live on the pay of a soldier. He has just told the House, after having made that bland declaration, how difficult it is for an officer to live on his existing rates of pay.

Captain Bernays: The hon. Member will forgive me, but I made exactly the same point both with regard to the officers and the men, that it was extremely difficul for a man who is married with a family, and an officer who is married with a family.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the single man and the OFFICIAL REPORT will show whether I am right or wrong in my interpretation of what he said. He referred to the single man, and the impression I derived from what he said was that the man serving in the ranks had sufficient to enable him to carry on quite well.

Captain Bernays: And the single officer.

Mr. Shinwell: All I have to say is that I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member. Let this be said without further ado. Every advance in pay and allowances to the men in the Forces has been forced upon the Government. On no single occasion have the Government taken the initiative. I have myself taken part in the agitations. I took a prominent part in the agitation for another 6d. a day. We had a devil of a job to get the Government to agree even to 6d. a day. We have been informed that the Government are ready to inform us of the assistance that they are now about to offer to men in the Forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is in the know. Not being in the know I am bound to say to my right hon. Friend that

I am a little doubtful and a little sceptical myself, knowing the Government on these matters. Of course, if I am proved wrong nobody will be more delighted, because what I shall lose in reputation the men in the Forces will gain in pay.
Indeed, that is what we are driving at. The position has always been bad. It was bad in those seemingly far-off days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) was Secretary of State for War. We then sought to increase the soldiers' pay, without success. True, at a subsequent stage it was increased by 100 per cent., which made another 1s. a day. The percentage seemed a great deal; in actual money value it was very little indeed. Speaking for myself, expressing no party view, I am bound to say that the position has become intensified since the advent of American and Dominion Forces in this country. We have differences with the Government—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not object to that, because I know the Government welcome a measure of opposition—but we take a great pride in the nation, and we feel that the nation's reputation is besmirched by the very fact that our men, as gallant, as ready to make the sacrifice, as efficient, as competent, as the men from the United States and from the Dominions, receive pay which is, in many cases, about half of what the men from overseas receive.

Sir Alfred Beit: That is just what the French said about the British Forces at the beginning of the war.

Mr. Shinwell: I anticipated that argument, but I am comparing our Forces with those from another part of the British Empire, and with the Forces of the United States of America—English - speaking people, accustomed, more or less, to the same standard of living. That is quite different from a comparison between the British and the French Forces. In any event, if any attempt is made to increase the pay of the French Forces it will not be done here. My hon. Friend can make his representations to General de Gaulle and the French Committee of National Liberation.

Mr. Bull: We should still have to pay if the French soldiers' pay were increased.

Mr. Shinwell: It was argued by the Deputy Prime Minister on one occasion, when I ventured to put the matter to him across the Floor, that you must relate the pay of the men in the Services to the cost of living to which they are subject in their own countries. The men from the United States and the Dominions are in this country, and when they are in North Africa and in Italy the exchange rates are very much in their favour, much more in their favour than in favour of our men, whose pay is much less. It is all wrong: there is something unjust, there is something invidious, about the fact that there is a lower rate of pay for our men—our single men—who want to have cigarettes as often as the men from abroad want them; who want beer—if that appeals to same hon. Members—as often; who want to stand their turn with the men with whom they must associate on the battlefield, and with whom they are anxious to associate, or, at any rate, with whom they should associate, when they are in this country. Why lower the standard and the prestige of our men? I object to it. If it meant an increase in Income Tax, I would rather see that than that our men should suffer in comparison with the men from other countries.
What would I do about this matter? Send it to a Select Committee? Of course not, Talk about deferred pay? Certainly not. I am not even going to speak in terms of a minimum of 5s. a day. I want something done, because I am practical—as, indeed, we all are. Give them at once another 1s. a day, and make a minimum of 30s. a week. That presents no difficulty. It solves the problem of another investigation. It takes a load off the mind of the Secretary of State for War, because he does not need to send out more reams of paper. Let him not shield himself by saying that it is a matter which affects all the Services, and that he cannot do it without consulting the War Cabinet, and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he wants to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let him do it now; and I will sit down while he does it. That is the way to do it.
We expect the men to be off the mark quickly on the battlefield. Let the Government do things quickly, and encourage the men. That is the way to raise their morale. You do not raise morale by the way you are doing things now. It may be

argued that the men do not seem to be discontented, because they do not go on strike. I am not suggesting that the men should have some kind of trade union organisation; we are the custodians of the rights of these men. That is not peculiar to any hon. Member: that is why we are all here. This problem is all part of the shelving process, leaving it to another day. I say, give them another 1s. a day, and a minimum of 30s. a week. There may be anomalies; but we will suffer the anomalies, so long as we know that the men are getting something extra. What about their families? I say, without hesitation—and I am on firm ground here—that there are hundreds of families of serving men in this country who are impoverished. Hundreds of them who are living on subsidies provided by their relatives—living on charity. There would be thousands still more seriously impoverished if it were not for the good employers, local authorities, and other organisations, making up the difference in pay. I can speak out of my own family experience. As one who is a father, a grandfather, and all that sort of thing—which happens to one in course of time, without malice aforethought—I would say that, although one naturally tries to come to the rescue of members of the family, one feels that it is not the duty of any father or grandfather, it is the duty of the Government, to do the right thing.
I am going to give an example. I do not require to go into statistics at all. Take two cases which occur to me. There were two men living alongside each other before the war. Both were engaged in business of some kind, both earning about £6 a week, which was the average pay for people of that kind, living in a certain standard of comfort. One man is called up for the Forces; and what happens? His pay is much smaller—with the allowance for his wife and children, just about half of what he was receiving before—except for this, that they can apply for a war service grant. So they apply, and get four shillings a week. This was before it was increased. Next door, the person retained in civil employment found that his £6 became £8 and in many cases £10. What justice is there in that? It is all wrong. It creates disquiet and discontent. You do not require agitators going round the place to cause discontent; it is born of the facts.


How is that going to help? The war service grant was created, not to deal with the generality of cases, but with exceptional cases. Indeed, it deals only with exceptional cases. It does not dispense largesse or throw money away. An investigation is conducted and all sorts of inquiries are made, yet even with the war service grants, many families are impoverished.
Something has been said about the cost of living in this connection. I say it is time we stopped all this talk about the cost of living, because it is really irrelevant to the figures submitted by the Government Departments. If you take the elementary needs of life, you can base it on the Government statistics, but that is not how it works out, as every one of us knows. Furniture, furnishings, clothing are required—clothing, particularly for children, when obtainable—and also all sorts of luxuries and semi-luxuries. Why should the wives and children of serving men be deprived of luxuries and semi-luxuries accessible to us? There is no sob stuff about this. After all, in war-time, we are living in equalitarian conditions, or ought to be, and it is with the right idea of equality that we should approach the question.
I want to ask the Government to consider the problem in this fashion. Our duty is to relieve of economic worry the men who are fighting. I agree with what was said by one hon. Member that there is no pecuniary compensation that you can give, for engagement in battle and for making the sacrifice. That is perfectly true, but what is it that troubles the men who are abroad, and the men in this country divorced from their homes? I know it from my correspondence, and all hon. Members are aware of the fact through their correspondence. It is the fear that their families are not comfortable. It does worry them, and I can understand it, because it has been my fear in the past, and, if I may say so to hon. Members, a fear and impression that led to bitterness and sourness. That is all wrong. It is economic worry that is at the root of most of our ills. We have suffered it in civil life. Let us not allow it to be planted on the men whom we are asking to save the nation at the present time. The next thing is to relieve hon. Members of the worry of dealing with such cases. They ought not to be addressed

to us at all. We ought to be able to say, when a letter comes to us appealing for higher pay, or better allowances, or more war service grant, "The Government are doing the right thing by you," and these Debates would be unnecessary.
Finally, it is our duty to provide the best possible conditions for these families. I have spoken vehemently—I am aware of it and sometimes hon. Members object to it—but if there is one thing I have felt from the beginning of the war—and I am sure I reflect the opinion of every hon. Member—it is that something has to be done about it, and we have to be forthright about it. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friends are adamant in the attitude of not wanting to do the right thing by the Service man. But what is the explanation? Can it be finance? I do not believe that finance is a matter of meaningless symbols, but I do say this—that, even if it costs another £50,000,000 to £100,000,000 a year, to provide another shilling for the men fighting, with a minimum of 30s. a week, and some additional recompense for the officers and perhaps another 2s. a day for the dependants—even if it costs that, it is worth while, because it will afford satisfaction to those concerned and satisfaction to hon. Members. Then, I would believe the nation was doing its duty. I say again that, no matter what difficulties in the way of finance are imposed on the people of this country at home, we must do our duty, and do it at once, by the men who are fighting.

Lieut.- Colonel Thornton - Kemsley: For the past four and a half years it has been my privilege to serve as a soldier and to be accepted as an equal by men who have made the Army their career. I think these men would not want me to pay them a compliment, but I know the House will forgive me, and I hope they will too, for saying that I have come to realise how much the country owes to their integrity, loyalty and leadership. Every time I have received a new posting, I have had to live down the fact that I am a Member of this House. The Army never really understands Parliament and I am not at all sure that Parliament, even today, really understands the Army. The wells of understanding have been poisoned on both sides—on our side by memories of Cromwell's major generals and half-


forgotten fears of the domination of a Standing Army, on theirs by memories of many injustices and neglects. If there is one thing above all others, which comes between us, it is the shadow of the Treasury. We have to face this fact if we are to build our post-war Army on sure foundations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a speech to which many hon. Members have paid tribute—and I would join in those tributes—mentioned the Regular Army traditions and the need for getting the right type of man to make the Regular Army his career. But what inducement are we offering to these men? What kind of homes will they be able to build for their wives and families? What sort of security will there be for their dependants, if they are killed? What indications are there that their transactions with the Treasury will be marked by generosity and humanity? I have a fear that such indications are very few. Those men will not have far to look for instances of lack of vision and little-mindedness. The soldier's pay is a case in point.
How we have tolerated the present figure goodness only knows, and I join with other hon. Members, all of whom I think are agreed, in expressing my gratitude to the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) for directing the attention of the House to this matter. His speech expressed what many of us have been feeling for a long time and have been trying to say, and we are backing him on these benches for all we are worth.
I read in an article in the Press the other day that the wives of private soldiers received an allowance of 3s. 1d. a day, whereas civilian firewatchers got a subsistence allowance of 4s. 6d. a night. There is no sense in that kind of thing. All these allowances ought to be looked into, not excluding those of the wife of the junior officer, about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) has spoken with such knowledge and so eloquently. The junior officer is having, I know from my own first-hand experience, a very hard time indeed. A large proportion of these officers, particularly the married ones, are having to carry heavy burdens. I think the House sometimes forgets that there are very few officers in the Army to-day who do not have to live on their pay. Many of them have financial obligations which

they contracted at a time when their earnings were very much higher than they are at the present time. These men ought to be encouraged to marry and become the fathers of children, and I am certain that what the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol said about the need for increasing child allowances ought to be carried into effect. I must in honesty say that, while I enjoyed his speech, I have been slightly disappointed with the two speeches delivered from this side of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol made a very much stronger case than the relief for which they asked. They marshalled their facts well and made a strong case, and then weakened it, in the one case by asking for this post-war credit for the soldier, and in the other, by concentrating very largely on asking for an increase in child allowances. We have to go right out; we have to face this thing and it is well that we should do it now. Let us have it out and give the soldier a fair deal.
There is one other thing I want to say which, though of much less importance, has some effect on the income of the junior officer. I want to draw the attention of the House to the matter of separation allowances. It has been a long standing grievance in the Regular Army and its effect extends to a very large number of officers to-day. When an officer has the good fortune to be in a station where he can live with his wife, his allowances are considerably higher than they are if he is accommodated in W.D. quarters. If he is accommodated in W.D. quarters, he receives fuel, light and furniture and a servant instead of an allowance of cash in lieu, which is given in the other case. That is all very well in theory, but in fact the only reduction in expenditure which falls upon the housekeeper—and she is the person you have to consider—is that she has to feed one less mouth. All the other expenses go on, yet in this case the family income will be reduced by as much as £38 a year, in the case of the subaltern officer, and by about £67 a year in the case of the captain, because of this enforced separation. These figures take no account of the allowances in lieu of rations which a soldier living out must receive and the loss of which reduces the family income even further. It can-


not be denied that it is relatively cheaper to maintain one combined establishment than two separate ones. It is inequitable, therefore, that officers who have to be separated from their families by the exigencies of the Services, and so, in effect, have to keep up two establishments, should be penalised financially. As I do not make these criticisms without alternative suggestions, my suggestion for putting the matter right is that family lodging allowances should be made equal to the allowances of the officer who can live with his family.
The British Army at home is preparing for an operation of singular difficulty, in which it will have to face great hazards and suffer severe casualties. Other preparations are on foot, too. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) reminded the House, preparations are being made to cash in on the light of publicity which these impending events shed upon the Army. The country is going to be asked to salute the soldier by buying more Saving Certificates. The response will be generous, as it always is. It would be a great thing for the country if the Treasury, which can hardly fail to benefit from these transactions, were itself to salute the soldier by recognising the justice of the pleas we are putting forward in this House to-day.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I, in common with other hon. Members, would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) on bringing forward the Amendment to-day. It so happens that I had the privilege of making my maiden speech in this House when this matter was last discussed on 10th September, 1942, and if it had not been for the luck of the Ballot on this occasion, it might have been another year or two before we had an opportunity of discussing the very important question of Service pay and allowances. I want to deal with one point in particular that was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) in what, in some respects, was an excellent speech, but which, in other respects, was not so excellent. He referred in particular to single men in the Army, and to married men without children, and stated that while he was serving as a private or lance-corporal he found the money he received

was sufficient to keep him going. I happen to have served as a stoker in the Navy far a little longer period, receiving a little more money than he was getting, and I only had children who had left school, and I assure him that my experience was not entirely the same. I found out very quickly indeed that, in relation to my civilian pay, the Service pay is very small. I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the position of single men who are now being called into the Forces. When this war started, the average age of single men called into the Forces was between 18 and 25, a particularly low age. To-day, we have men of 40 being called into the Forces at 3s. a day for the first six months of their service.

Captain Bernays: Not many of them are single, are they?

Mr. Edwards: Whatever the number may be, the allowance of pay they are receiving is either just or unjust, and the hon. and gallant Member was referring to single men as a whole, in the same way as I am referring to them now. It is hardly necessary to remind the House that the vast majority of these men who are being called up to-day, round about the age of 40, have been in receipt of an income of at least £5 or £6 a week. Out of that income, they have been helping to keep their old parents, and they have had sufficient to enable them to put by for a rainy day, perhaps for the eventuality of marriage, or even to have savings for old age. What is the position of these men now that they are being called into the Army? In the first place, the contribution they have been making to the home is lost, and the parents suffer, because a dependant's allowance is granted only after the strictest means test. Secondly, the man is going to get 21s. a week after having perhaps £3 or £4. I maintain that when men are put into that position, it must make them the most dissatisfied type of persons that we have to take into the Forces. Why should a man, as a result of conscription into the Forces, suffer any disadvantage at all? I contend that as a result of our Military Service Acts, the State should be responsible for these people getting a similar standard of living to that which they had whilst in industry. With the present rates, it is absolutely impossible.
I do not think the argument applies wholly and solely to single men. As has already been pointed out, vast numbers of married men—thousands at the present time—are just existing on Army rates of pay, and unless there is that possibility of the wife being able to get a good job, their families are also suffering. It is an actual fact that many men, even out of their very small pay at the present time, are compelled to send home money to their wives and children in order that they can buy some little piece of clothing or footwear. I contend that it is absolutely disgraceful for the State to put those men into that position.
There is another point which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) with regard to equal pay. It so happens that both my children have been in the Services during this war. Unfortunately I have lost one, but I still have a daughter in the W.A.A.F. She is carrying on clerical work which had previously been performed by a man. She is doing exactly the same work, and I consider that where women in the Forces are performing work previously performed by a man—such as cooks, motor drivers and clerks—sometimes more efficiently than men, then the women should receive the same rate of pay as the men were receiving. I do not say we have to make it general. Again, when you come dawn to the question of women's rates, they are only two-thirds of the men's rates and the same argument as to the very low value of their pay applies to them as well as to the men.
I am convinced that the Government have to do something on this occasion. If they do not, they are falling out of line with public opinion in this country. On the day I was elected, I was asked by a newspaper correspondent what I thought was a fair day's pay for a man in the Forces. I stated then, as the mover of the Amendment stated to-day, that I considered it most unjust for any man who is taken into the Forces to receive less than 5s. a day. I still retain that view although, in comparison with 1942, it should be more. Nevertheless, I contend that the Government are out of line with public opinion in this country if they come forward with any offer which is going to be less than a basic rate of 5s. a day. I would warn the Government that the reasons for the results of many of the

by-elections recently, have not been due entirely to the policy of the non-Government candidates. In my view, the results have been due, to a very large extent, to the niggardly treatment which has been served out to our Service men and their dependants since the war started.

Mr. H. Lawson: I am sorry to interrupt but will the hon. Member name any specific by-election where the pay of Service men has been made a major issue?

Mr. Edwards: I have not taken part in any of the by-elections and I cannot say where it has been made a specific issue, but I can say this. In voicing the opinion of my own constituents—and we have had no by-election there recently—I can say that they are strongly of opinion that the Government are not playing fair with the men and women in the Forces, and although it may not be made a specific issue at a by-election, that is borne in mind by the electors when they are dealing with the policy of the Government. I say quite frankly, that one of the reasons for the high anti-Government vote is the attitude which the Government are now taking on this question of pay, and I am confident that, unless they are going to make some reasonable and fair concession to-day, in the by-elections to come they will find they will get bigger thrashings than those they have been receiving recently.

Viscount Suirdale: I would begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) upon the way in which he made his speech, and for having brought up this issue at this time. It was high time it was brought up, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for West Aberdeen (Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley) in that I am inclined to support the views of those on the other side rather than those of hon. Members who have spoken on this side. In fact, I am in the unusual position of objecting to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on the ground that he does not go far enough. The issue, as I see it, is a very simple one. It is: Are our Service men getting a fair deal compared with their opposite numbers in industry? It is a little difficult to work that out exactly, owing to the complication of the fact that Service men have "all found." There may be a certain amount of argument as


to how much the services given to them by the War Office are really worth. The only document we can fall back upon is the White Paper, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has already described as an infamous White Paper. In this case it is actually a very convenient one. It seems to me to offer a perfect brief for a prosecuting attorney in this particular Debate, and I am prepared to base my arguments upon the White Paper and accept the figures put in it. The gap between the rates of Army pay and civilian pay is such that the little bit that might get lost in that does not seem to me to matter at all.
In the White Paper play is made with the fact that although the pay for a soldier, when he first joins up, is low, he has many and quick opportunities of getting more. I would like to take a typical case of a soldier who has been in the Army for 18 months. This is an average case, because the soldier has had a chance of getting certain increments. What I say applies equally to officers and other ranks and to members of the A.T.S., but I cannot give more than one or two examples and I would rather keep on the plane I know best and talk about the ordinary soldier. We have talked a lot about the unmarried man who, if he has 18 months' service, gets, in cash and kind, £3 1s. 3d. Making allowances for the difference in the incidence of Income Tax that is equal to £3 11s. The question is: Is that enough? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) says that it is enough, because it is possible to live on that. But that is not the issue. I cannot see why a man, because he goes into the Army and puts on a uniform, should be put at a disadvantage in taking out his girl friend to the cinema, as against his opposite number in "civvy street." My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw produced figures showing that the average income of a man over 21 in Government industrial work was over £6 a week. That is nearly double what the man in the Service gets and I think the Government must not talk to us about putting another 6d. on Army pay. They must go a long way to try and bridge that very large gap.
My other example is the married man with two children. I entirely agree with those who have said that the married man with children is the one who is worst off.

A married man with 18 months' service, and with two children, is calculated to receive £4 8s. 9d. That may not appear to be a big gap, but the hardship is much worse. What he actually receives is £3 5s. 9d., and of that only £2 3s. is paid direct to the wife. A man can allot a considerable amount of his pay to his wife—a great many do—but it is a great pity that he should have to allot the major part of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, one of the vital things in military efficiency is morale and one of the things we have to fight is boredom. It is only right that these men should have some extra pay with which to go to the pictures and buy cigarettes, in a reasonable way. Although I think it is arguable that it is possible to live on the money the man's wife and children get now, it is not a fair deal at all, because they have no margin with which to meet the liabilities that may arise on a rainy day. From my own personal experience, this worry about wives and children is the thing that most concerns the troops. Nothing could be worse for morale than subjecting our troops to that worry.
This is a real grievance, and it is very much aggravated by the fact that the pay of American and Dominion troops is much more. Our troops mix with them, and they cannot entertain because they simply cannot afford it. There is a first-class case for raising the rates of pay, and an even better case for raising the allowances given to wives and children. What do we want? I go much further than the hon. Member for Seaham. I think that a substantial part of this gap of £2 a week should be bridged. I would accept the figure given by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham as a minimum—5s. a day, plus another 10s. as the wife's allowance, plus 12s. 6d. as each child's allowance. I think the Government should meet that. It may be said that we cannot afford it, but I absolutely reject that idea. I refuse to believe that if America and the Dominions are capable of paying their troops properly this country cannot do the same. Therefore, I hope the Government will meet us. If they do not meet us substantially I, for one, will go into the Division Lobby against them.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): I have listened with the


greatest interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) and the other Members of the House who have taken part in this Debate. When this subject was last debated in September, 1942, my right hon. and learned Friend who is now the Minister of Aircraft Production, and who was then Leader of the House, said that the House of Commons and the Government are always most solicitous for the welfare of members of the Armed Forces of the Crown and are anxious that they should be fully satisfied that they have been dealt with justly in this matter of pay and allowances. For my part, I consider it vital that the financial position of the fighting man and his dependants should not be lost sight of for a moment, and I should be the last to quarrel with any sincere criticism of the rates of pay and allowances which have been adopted by His Majesty's Government during the course of this war.
The arguments, the criticisms and the cases put forward have fallen within three well-marked categories. The first, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Grantham, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Viscount Suirdale) and others, involved an increase in the basic rates as being in accordance with some supposed principle. The principles expressed have been different. One has been that the soldiers' pay should be levelled up to industrial rates; another was based on some assumption that it would be quite wrong if the people of this country were unwilling to concede to their own soldiers and families the same rates of pay and allowances as some hon. Members thought the Dominions and United States troops had. The second case was made by the seconder of the Amendment and I do not think I am unfairly summarising it in saying it was that the case for an immediate basic increase was not very strong but that we must begin to think now of the position the soldier will be in when he comes to be released from the Forces. The third argument was that put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) and, personally, I regard his argument as being entitled to great respect in this House because he has lived in the Forces, both in the ranks and as an officer. His argu-

ment was, as I understand it, that there is no case now for a flat increase but that there are hardships which definitely ought to be considered.
Let me come back to the two main bases of argument which appeared in the first case, namely, for a substantial and immediate increase in basic rates on principle. The first basis of comparison was the levelling up to some supposed level of industrial wages. It is impossible to compare directly the total wages of the Service man with the earnings of his industrial brother outside. In fact there is a fundamental difference between civilian and Army earnings. The civilian receives a wage which is, in no way, related to the fact of marriage, or the number of children. Control of his wages is wholly his. In peace time, he can allocate it as he chooses among a variety of objects of necessary or additional expenditure, which form part of his life and the life of his family. In war time he is limited by the rationing system in the amount that he is allowed to spend on necessaries, and a good part of the luxuries or semi-luxuries on which he might otherwise spend his income, are not available. The soldier's position is quite different. More often the gross emoluments of the private soldier are not paid to him in cash at all. He cannot choose what food he will eat, what clothes he will wear, or how often he will replace them. For military reasons the amount and quality of the food that he must have, actually exceeds that which is permitted to civilians and his uniform clothing is of very good quality and is frequently replaceable. Marriage and children's allowances are paid directly to the family, and the money is not handled by the soldier at all. These are some of the reasons which make any direct comparison unprofitable, and even misleading. The hon. Member for Grantham compared the lowest paid soldier, a case which covers only 5 per cent. of the Army, with one of the highest paid industrial workers outside.

Mr. Kendall: I did not take one of the highest grade industrial workers. We have many far more highly paid industrial workers than a machine operator brought in from outside, quite untrained, who becomes a semi-skilled operator in an engineering factory.

Sir J. Griģģ: The hon. Member compared him with an industrial worker in the upper half of the wages rate.

Mr. Kendall: No, certainly not.

Sir J. Griģģ: What I am clear about—and I am quite correct in my facts—is that the figure on which the hon. Member based his comparison, is, to my knowledge, above the average earnings of industrial workers, and that I will maintain, whether I know as much about industrial workers as the hon. Member or not. Anyhow, that is an additional argument to show how difficult it is to compare industrial earnings with the pay of the soldier. Moreover, in regard to levelling up, in some cases you get a levelling down, even if you get a proper basis. The level of industrial wages is by no means uniform. Some industrialists are definitely paid lower than the Army. This question of levelling up gets you nowhere.

Mr. Bull: Who is paid lower than the Army?

Sir J. Griģģ: The agricultural worker.

Mr. Bull: Before the war or now?

Sir J. Griģģ: In any case there is no such thing as a general level of agricultural wages. It covers a very wide range of figures, and their inter-relationship varies from time to time.
The other basis that was taken was something like this. Surely we must level up the wages of the soldier to those of the Dominions. They vary very much and there is the same sort of argument there. If you are to level up to the highest, the figures involved would be of an extremely high order. During the debate I have made some rough calculations of the cost of the proposal of the hon. Member for Grantham and my figure—I do not place too much reliance on it—of what the cost would be for the three Services, is of the order of £200,000,000 a year. The figure based on the second argument, of levelling up to the Dominions or United States forces, would vary, according to which Dominion we choose, but I think you might say they would be double the £200,000,000 figure. On this first class of case an increase based on a comparison with outside industrial wages, or with Dominion forces, is one that cannot possibly be met, and the Government cannot possibly meet it. Apart from the general vagueness of the criteria proposed, there is

not the slightest doubt that the figure would involve inflation on the very wildest scale, which would in itself completely derange the whole basis of values, and in a very short time the whole range of wages would be out of focus again, and you would get this continual process.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Some of us are quite unable to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Which set of figures is it that he would have us believe would entirely upset the balance of things, if it were levelled up to the Dominions or America, or the 5s. which has been suggested?

Sir J. Griģģ: I took two alternative bases which have been put forward and I tried to point out that one would involve an additional expenditure of the order of £200,000,000 a year. The other basis was levelling up to something much higher, the pay of the Dominion and American Forces. It is clear from a casual look at the figures that it would involve something probably twice as high as the £200,000,000. Then my argument was that an extra expenditure of the order of £200,000,000 a year, with no corresponding production of goods which could be purchased with that money, and still more of £400,000,000, would set in motion the whole inflationary process which has been kept tin check up to now with great difficulty. That process of inflation would, in itself, derange the whole basis of values. It would throw the different wages in the Forces and the various forms of industry out of relationship again, and then we should have the whole process of levelling up again.

Mr. Bellenģer: The right hon. Gentleman is using a very serious argument. He has thrown across the Floor of the House, figures which we have no means of checking. Are they gross figures? Do they take into account the drop in war service grants that would be bound to ensue? Do they take into account the increased taxation to the Revenue, and various things like that?

Sir J. Griģģ: These are not the only consequence we would have to take into account. What I say is that it would set up such forces that a whole series of reactions would begin which we cannot calculate, but which would certainly start the process of levelling-up again in a very short time.

Mr. Shinwell: This is pure reactionary Toryism of the worst kind. The right hon. Gentleman should tell it to the Trades Union Congress.

The Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): It would be better if the Minister were allowed to state his case.

Mr. Shinwell: I am saying that the right hon. Gentleman, who is speaking on behalf of the Government, should tell the trade unions what he is now saying.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that directly concerns the Debate.

Sir J. Griģģ: The Government must decide and they must tell the House frankly that increases of this order and on these principles, and any adjustment of pay on that basis, are outside the range of practical politics.
Let me come to two other suggestions which were made. The first was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor). Naturally one of the questions which is bound to be taken into consideration on demobilisation is the financial provision for the soldier as he leaves the Forces. A great deal of study has already been given to that. I cannot say that final decisions have been made, for obviously we have not got to the stage when they can be taken. There is not, however, the slightest doubt that some financial provision will have to be made for that contingency. I can certainly assure my hon. and gallant Friend that his suggestions will be carefully examined at the time when releasing men from the Forces becomes a practical possibility.

Major C. S. Taylor: The question of deferred pay is not a matter to be left until after the war. It has to be dealt with now.

Sir J. Griģģ: If a man gets a gratuity on demobilisation, or deferred pay, it all amounts to the same thing. It is money in his pocket on demobilisation. I do not think there can be any argument about that. I come to the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) and his classes of hardship. As I said when I opened my remarks, one of the duties of the War Office and other Service Departments is to study all evidence and the facts that come before them in relation to the hardship and the condi

tions of service of the men under their care. We do that as a matter of course, and in view of the fact that a considerable number of Members have expressed anxiety about these grievances and hardships the Government are perfectly prepared to discuss with representatives of all quarters of the House, as was done about a year ago, any suggestions which they may wish to put forward in these two categories, the demobilisation category and the hardship category.

Dr. Haden Guest: Why not make an announcement in the House about it?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is the position of the Government. They cannot possibly consider increases of the very vast order which have been put forward from various quarters of the House. Subject to that, the Government are ready to discuss any suggestions for the relief of particular hardships and grievances with representatives of all quarters of the House, as was done a year ago, as I understood at the time and have understood for a considerable time since, to the general satisfaction of the House.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: For three hours the House has been discussing this important question. This is a Debate which is about to conclude, I think, without much satisfaction to any of the parties concerned—with no satisfaction to the soldier, with little satisfaction to the House and, as I imagine, with little satisfaction to the Government themselves. We all recognise the difficulty of the position in which my right hon. Friend is placed. Apart from other concerns which weigh upon him, he has had a very hard day. His peroration earlier to-day related to the post-war Army. It was a moving peroration, intended to raise the status of the great profession which he administers. He said that after the war the calling of the soldier must be made attractive, and that he must be paid better than he has hitherto been paid. My right hon. Friend now concludes the Debate, which deals with the Army of to-day, by endeavouring to persuade the House that the soldier is satisfactorily paid in relation to industry as a whole or, if not to industry, to agriculture. The Amendment upon which the House has to come to a decision asserts that the pay of the Army is inadequate and that it is urgent to increase it. Every speech that has


been made in the Debate has been directed to proving that case. These speeches have been made almost entirely by hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have present or immediately past experience of the conditions now prevailing. Everyone of them has argued that the pay and allowances, both of the soldiers and of the junior officers, are insufficient. Every speech has been directed to proving that case.
It would be unfortunate, indeed, to the national interest if this Debate were read by the Army and if the conclusion of it were to be a reply from my right hon. Friend, which rejected, out of hand, the whole case presented. I want to be clear therefore as to what exactly is intended. Is the door closed on any increase of basic pay for the soldier? That is the first question I would like to ask my right hon. Friend. I want to know the position of the Government, because the House has a wish to come to a conclusion on these matters. Would my right hon. Friend tell me?

Sir J. Griģģ: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will finish his speech.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, I think the ordinary courtesy—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend has made an offer to the House to discuss these matters with representative Members. Surely we are entitled to know whether the Government have already made up their minds on the question at issue before we accept that offer. I think it would be only the ordinary courtesy if my right hon. Friend would answer that question.

The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): Perhaps I will be allowed to say a word. Let the right hon. Gentleman go on with his speech and I will wind up.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Really, this is a very strange position. The Secretary of State for War has made a speech. I have also held the office of Secretary of State for War, and I ask him for the meaning of a sentence which he has used.

Sir J. Griģģ: I am perfectly ready to make clear the import of the speech I made. What I said was that the Government could not possibly accept any increase of the basic rates, in accordance

with some presumed principle. That being so, I think the right hon. Gentleman can take it that there is no commitment on the part of the Government in favour of considering any increase in basic rates.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am very sorry indeed to hear what my right hon. Friend said. If the offer of the Government is to discuss this question and to hear the evidence that can be brought before the Government, to say in advance that the Government's attitude is rigid on that point is really to offer the House very little—and to offer the soldier very little. I agree, and I am prepared to accept the position, that the case of the wife and child is more insistent than the case of the man himself. I am prepared to accept that position, because it is obviously true. Am I clear—because I think the House must be clear before this Amendment is disposed of—that on this matter of the allowance to the wife and the children's allowance, family allowances as a whole, the mind of the Government is not made up, but they will hear representations?

Mr. Shinwell: On actual increases.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: On actual increases.

Sir J. Griģģ: indicated assent.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have the assurance of the Government that on that matter their mind is not made up and that they will be prepared to hear the case. This is an offer by the Government to hear representations on the question of allowances and on hardship cases, but the mind of the Government is closed upon the question of basic pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "And allowances."] No, the Government admit that there is a case to be presented under the heading of allowances. What the result of those representations will be we cannot foresee, but in regard to those matters, at any rate, I think that if they were separated, the House would be wrong to challenge the Government, because that is a valuable and fair offer. [Interruption.] There is no question about it. That is an offer to receive representations, and to take action, presumably, if the case is effectively presented, on all allowances. I think that is a fair offer, and should be accepted by the House. Whether or not the House will be convinced by the Gov-


ernment's proposals when they are ultimately presented cannot be prejudged. That will be for the House to decide at the time.

Lieut-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the necessary representations have been adequately made in this House? The House requires the Government's decision to-night.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Most certainly I think that there has been time, of course, on every day that has preceded this one, to consider this and other matters, but I do not think it would be—I say it at the risk of incurring my hon. and gallant Friend's displeasure—fair to any Government who said that they were prepared to listen to representations, immediately to reject the offer and to proceed to a Division. I think it would be an unwise course to pursue, because it would not get anything for the soldier; whereas this proposal to receive representations on allowances seems to me to meet the case under that head, provided the procedure is expeditious.
On the question of pay, I want to present a case to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who sits opposite to me, because he is fairminded, in the hope that we may reach a solution that will be convincing to the Army and to the country and will not leave a sense of grievance behind. Since the matter was discussed in the House on 10th September, 1942, the world has not stood still. The American and Canadian soldiers have come here in great numbers since then—there were some at the time, but they have come here in greater numbers—and one has had experience of the relations between the two Armies. There have been great changes in the domestic wage structure in industry since then. It is not right, in my submission, to send a message to the soldier to the effect that he is to be the only member of the community whose pay is stabilised. That is not fair. If you were to have a general stop order on everybody's wage or salary, that would be clearly understood, but it is not right that the coal miner, the steel worker and the railway worker should be able to obtain increases from time to time while the Government take up the attitude that soldiers' pay must be stabilised. I want an assurance that that is not going to be the attitude of the Government and that they

will admit that subject to discussion on the same footing.
When the matter was last debated I made this same case, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production interrupted me in the middle of my speech and said:
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not do so consciously, but I do not want to be misinterpreted. I said it would be stabilised so long as the present price levels remain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th September, 1942; col. 391, Vol. 383.]
He was correcting me, and saying that they did not intend to stabilise the wage of the soldier. Since then, prices have risen—not the prices of the articles which the Government keep at a fixed level, but in other respects. Prices have altered. Wages have risen in many industries since then. The soldier, however, is asked to remain where he is. The Secretary of State told us just now that if he granted the proposal asked for it would be inflation. The procedure taken against inflation is to subsidise the cost of articles in ordinary consumption. The procedure taken against inflation is partly rationing. Inflation is caused by a rush on the goods which are available, in an endeavour to purchase more than the market can provide. That situation is under control, but, in any event, what I want to be assured about, is that the soldier is not to be the only member of the community to whom this argument is to be applied. There is no permanent charge being incurred here. There is no post-war charge being incurred here. There is an immediate charge. With the conclusion of the war, the Army will be demobilised and a smaller force will be kept in being. It will have a nucleus, as we have been told to-day, of better-paid men, and the kernel formed round it will be conscripts on short service. Therefore I do not think it is fair to address this argument of inflation exclusively to the soldier.
Whether my hon. Friend, who introduced this Amendment with great force and eloquence, is satisfied with the assurances given by the Government I have no means of saying. Personally, I would accept the offer to discuss the allowances and make up my mind on that aspect when the Government have reached their conclusions. I would not, however, be prepared to accept the statement that the pay of the soldier is stabilised and outside the realm of the discussion. Therefore, un-


less I receive some assurance from my right hon. Friend that this matter is not prejudged, and that it will also be open to discussion on the same footing—an assurance that this message is not to be sent to the soldier, that, whatever happens outside, his pay is not in the sphere of discussion, I should think my hon. Friend's Amendment will be more widely supported that otherwise would be the case.

Mr. Buchanan: I always think that a training on the Front Bench is an excellent thing. The right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has sat in this House for a long time. In the old days, when a Labour Government held a minority position, he and I on many occasions joined forces on the question of the Anomalies Act, etc. I admired his forthright argument, if I may say so, and his very straight way of putting things. Since those days he has been on the Front Bench and occupied Government positions, and now he occupies a seat on the other Front Bench. Some way or another I find he is capable now of a method of argument which I think in the old days was foreign to his approach. In other words, what is he saying? He says that the Government have decided to reject any increase in basic pay to the soldier, that definitely that is their position, but that he would not vote against the Government, although they have rejected that and picked the soldier out from the rest of the community. He would accept some vague terms indicating that they intend to deal with some cases very vaguely described to-day—nothing more than that.
Let me say a word or two to the Government on this matter. I hope this is not unfair to the Secretary of State for War. I can remember that the Chancellor, when he occupied another place, on one occasion came to the House to make an unpopular case and everyone was down on him. All that could be said about him was that the only difference between him and other Ministers was that he delivered his message much more honestly and straightforwardly than his colleagues would have done. The same is true of the Secretary of State for War, but I wish he would take a lesson from the Leader of the House and learn a little geniality and kindness. Really, offensive-

ness is not argument, and offensiveness in this House is now becoming more than a joke. I do not know what he means. What is the offer he has made? No increase in basic pay. We may dismiss that definitely. Then he makes an offer, in a vague way, to discuss cases of hardship, because that is his phrase, "cases of hardship." That does not mean what the hon. Gentleman on this side said it meant. If he meant to discuss children's allowances, then that is not a case of hardship. That is a general class of case, and he should have said it.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: May I interrupt the hon. Member? We want to be quite clear. While I was speaking I put this question, and I understood that the reply I received was that the Government were prepared to discuss these allowances. My right hon. Friend certainly gave me that assurance. What the Secretary of State for War may have said in his speech may have been confined to hardship cases. Since then the Leader of the House has given me an affirmative answer.

Mr. Buchanan: He has given the right hon. Gentleman no answer. He may have privately told him in some way. This is becoming rather annoying, in these days of Coalition Government. In the old days one had only to fight the Government. Now one has to fight both Front Benches. I have been a backbencher for a long time in this House, and the back benches I have always occupied had a difficult time fighting one Front Bench. Now we have to fight two. The right hon. Member for Devonport says that he has an assurance from the Leader of the House. When did he get the assurance? Is he to get an assurance that I have not got? Is he to get an assurance that the House has not got? This is the House of Commons, not the right hon. Member for Devonport. In this place we are equal alike, and if assurances are to be given by the Leader of the House they should not be something private between two men; they ought to be given to the House properly and decently. If he has given some assurance let him state it now to the House.
The Leader of the House is a House of Commons man. It is an important place and he likes it. It is not House of Commons' work for some man on the Opposition Front Bench to say he has got an assurance from the Leader of the House. What is it? I dismiss it, because really it


is fantastic. What is the issue? Why I do not regard the thing as being too sincere, is that the great occasion of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair is only presented practically once a year. It is the Parliamentary constitutional way, and the Government would know that great numbers of Members on this side of the House, and I should say also great numbers on the other side, knowing what is the feeling in their divisions, would if they were lucky in the ballot select the pay and allowances of the soldier. Every hon. Member knows it, and if the Secretary of State for War does not know it he should go back to the Civil Service and not be a politician.
The first job of a politician is to know the House of Commons and what it is going to do. Twelve months have elapsed and they should have made up their minds on the major issues. I could understand the Secretary of State for War, on a minor issue, which someone has raised as a bolt from the blue, and which no one had thought of before, saying, "That is a new point, and I will consider it." But questions like the basic pay, the marriage allowance, and the children's allowances have been first-class issues for 12 months. Now we get this offer, after the House of Commons have driven the Government to it—because they have only made it to escape from a dilemma. It reminds me of a football team, leading by one goal to nothing, with five minutes to go, kicking the ball out for time.
I do not always take the same view of the war as others take, but I know—and I said it to my union the other day, in connection with wages—that if this second front arises, with its terrible risks, people will not think much even of their own incomes. There comes the overwhelming shadow of sorrow and the things that war entails. I do not know whether the Government think that that will make this an aside, because it will be small compared to those things, but that is no reason why we should neglect the matter. It is all the more reason why we should solve it now. The Secretary of State for War said that this would cause inflation. In 1942 the standards were fixed. Since 1942, by a process of bargaining and negotiation, great masses of people, not merely workers but great masses outside the workers' range, have received increases of wages. The engineering trades, with which I am concerned, have twice

received increases. Why should you say to the soldier, who, although he puts on uniform, is nevertheless still a worker, that he is to be left out? Conditions have been improved for the great mining community—and I say that they have not too much. The Civil Service have, in some degree, had improvements. Who, then, are to be left out, and told that the thing is stabilised? The soldiers, who, if you are going to fight a war, are perhaps the most important people in your whole community.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the case quoted by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) represents only 5 per cent. I remember, in my early days in this House, watching two Conservative Members here. I had come raw to the House. I can name those Members, because I think both are dead. They were both kindly men: Austen Chamberlain and Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck. A Labour Member, with some eloquence, had made a speech on behalf of the blind, and somebody said that the blind were less than 1 per cent. of our total population. I can still remember the bitterness with which those men answered him. One of them said, "All the more reason why you should treat them well."

Sir J. Griģģ: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I was not basing any argument on the actual pay of those 5 per cent. I was devoting my argument to the fact that the hon. Member had been comparing a very small minority at the lowest end of the Army scale, with people well up in the industrial scale.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. Gentleman said that this group represented only 5 per cent. I put it to the Leader of the House, I put it to all decent human beings, that this is not a matter for a Committee, this is a matter for us to deal with. Everybody is agreed, particularly in regard to children, on the great need for decent nutrition. Take the case of a woman with two children to keep, and an income of 43s. a week. Divide it up as you like; allow 8s. for rent, allow for coal and the ordinary things. What does it leave her? Every man in this House who has had children, who is a kindly father, would shudder to think of his children being treated in this way. He would not conceive of such a thing. He would not dream of waiting for a Com-


mittee. There is the case, as I see it. The single men have a case, particularly those with widowed mothers. The hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays), to whose speech I took no exception, although he said things from which I differed, referred to the single men. Let me say this about the single men.

Captain Bernays: I was certainly not referring to single men, with mothers to keep.

Mr. Buchanan: In every case that I am concerned with the man allows his mother at least 7s. a week. Some of them actually allow 10s. 6d. and 14s. But take the average case, of the man with 21s. who allows 7s., leaving 14s. If he is given an extra compassionate leave home, he has to pay his own train fare, possibly from as far south as Bristol to as far north as Glasgow. All that has to come out of his income. He has to provide the decencies of life. In these days I am becoming somewhat cynical: I have seen little change in all my political life, and sometimes I wonder if there is a place for me in it. Let me say this to hon. Members, particularly the Leader of the House and the Conservatives. In future, we shall be judged on realities more than ever we were in the past, on the real things that we have done. I would say to the Conservatives, and to my Labour friends, that if ever I could make a human appeal I would do it to them now. Let us rise above all our storms and stresses, and let us act as a House of Commons, and say to the Government that this delay has gone too far and that this great people—because after all the British are a great people—shall be treated in a just and honourable fashion.

The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) can always be sure that what he has to say to the House will be listened to with respect because of the sincerity with which he speaks. I intervene only for a few moments because I am conscious that the House wants to come to a decision, and I am extremely anxious that the House should be in no doubt about the Government's position. If a decision is taken, nothing could be more unsatisfactory,

from the point of view of our Debate, than that there should be misunderstanding and consequent unnecessary confusion. Let me try to state, in a very few sentences, what the Government's position is.
Let me first say what we do not accept. Two principles were put forward to-day for the comparison of the basic rates of pay in our Army and the basic rates of pay elsewhere. The two comparisons were the Dominions and United States and a certain level in industry. I must make the Government's position quite clear. We are not prepared to have a discussion with a view to raising the basic rates in our Army up to those levels. That is what we cannot do, and I must frankly tell the House that that is our position, and if the House thinks we ought to do that, they are perfectly justified and would be perfectly correct to divide against us.
Let me say what we are prepared to do. We are prepared, as we have said, to have the conversations on certain subjects, which I will enumerate in a moment, just as the Minister of Aircraft Production, when Leader of the House two years ago, had certain discussions. I want to be absolutely frank with the House, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will bear me out, when I say that I do not accept, in the light of the discussion that has gone on to-day, that a case has been made out for a flat increase in basic pay. That is our position. I do not accept that, but it is not the Government's position that, if there are discussions of these matters, we shall refuse to discuss whether or not some increase in basic pay should be made. What we will not accept are the two principles put forward in the Debate to-day, and it should be understood that we do not accept those principles, and are in no way committed in these discussions as regards basic pay. But we do not take up the position that they cannot be discussed. There are two other categories of some importance. One is the category of the hard case, including allowances.

Mr. Buchanan: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Eden: So far as hardship cases are concerned, and allowances cases, obviously, they will be included in the discussion, and the Government are pre-


pared to agree. It is very important. I do not want to give the House a false impression, and that is why I want to be sure I am completely in step with the House to-day. We admit that there are hardship cases, which will require examination and should be examined.

Mr. W. Edwards: Only among officers?

Mr. Eden: Oh, no, I never said anything of the kind. I spoke of all ranks in the Army. There is no distinction there. Finally, there is the case raised by the hon. and gallant Member—and it is one of some importance—the question of demobilisation and what financial provision is made at the time of demobilisation. I want to say that we have not just ignored this subject. We have been at work on it, and certain proposals are now under discussion before the War Cabinet, but it is not, in our judgment, an opportune moment to make an announcement.

Mr. A. Bevan: When is an opportune moment?

Mr. Eden: I think the Government might be given enough liberty to choose their own moment. For the rest, we are perfectly ready to discuss these questions in exactly the same way as the matters to which I have referred.

Captain Bernays: Are the Government willing to consider a flat increase in children's allowances?

Mr. Eden: We are prepared to examine all these questions. I am not prepared to accept the principles put forward and I think that is a reasonable attitude, but I can say that discussion of that would not be excluded.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Does the right hon Gentleman mean by that, that he is not prepared to discuss the question of children's allowances except on a hardship basis?

Hon. Members: No, no.

Mr. Eden: It is quite a fair question. No, it is not on a hardship basis. I am not now saying that the Government are going to make this or that decision. I am saying that these matters are not excluded from the discussion. I have, I hope, put as plainly as I can the position to the House. I have stated the Government's position on which the Government stand,

and I hope the House will be prepared to give a decision.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I just say a word? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not as oncoming as he usually is. I should have thought that the House to-day was very much concerned about the pay and allowances of the people in the Army. It may be that on all sides of the House the case that has been made has been pressed too high. But on occasions like this when the House expresses its view on a purely non-party basis, being concerned about the present plight of the men in the Army and their wives and dependants, I should have thought that the Government might have been a little more generous in their attitude. My right hon. Friend, I do not think, has shown that generous spirit in which I am accustomed to be treated by him, and which the House is accustomed to expect. I would have thought it a little unfortunate if His Majesty's Government were to try to limit any consideration by Members of this House, in discussions with the Government, and I would have thought it entirely wrong for him to say that we are ruled out of a discussion of basic pay.

Mr. Eden: I did not say that. I thought I had made myself clear. What I said was that I do not accept the two principles put forward to-day in this House for the comparison of basic pay with that of Dominion troops and wages in industry, but I did not exclude a discussion on basic pay.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I heard two arguments reiterated by several hon. Members as illustrations, but they were not accepted. Do I understand that my right hon. Friend is willing to have a discussion, without consideration of these or any other illustrations?

Mr. Eden: Whether you regard them as principles or illustrations, these principles are not acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Greenwood: That is really my point. If the Government expect to have a discussion with representative Members of the House on the whole question of pay and allowances, it would be foreign to the spirit of this House if His Majesty's Government were to lay down limitations before the discussions took place. If my right hon. Friend could not say it, I think


that at least it was implied by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. This discussion has been rather unfortunate. Let us, at least, know where we are getting. I am certain that every Member in the Chamber is concerned about the position of members of His Majesty's Forces. It is the desire in all quarters of the House that the Government should have a little time to think and be enlightened by Members of the House. I would suggest that, if there is to be a discussion, it must be on the broadest basis. Members of the House surely ought not to be denied the right to raise with His Majesty's Government any question affecting pay and allowances for members of the Army. If that could be agreed, without the limitations suggested by my right hon. Friend and rather hinted at by the Leader of the House, as far as I am concerned, I would be prepared to accept an arrangement of that kind. I doubt whether—taking the mood and temper of the House—it would be inclined to accept a limited set of terms of reference. The Amendment before the House is on the whole question of pay and allowances. I should hope that the Government would agree to a broad inquiry and consultation between representative Members of the House and the Government on the whole question of pay and allowances. If that offer were made, I believe the House would accept it.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I remind the House that the well-being of the officers and men of the Army is in the hands of the House of Commons, as was said by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell)? Nobody can decide this question except the House of Commons nor can any of us, wherever we sit, escape our plain duty and responsibility in this matter. I have heard every speech made in the House to-day, and I am bound to confess that I did not glean the same ideas from the speeches as those suggested by the Leader of the House. I did not hear anybody suggest that the basic pay of men in the Army should be raised to a level of the rates paid in industry. What I did understand, and what I think is the temper of the House, is that an increase should be paid to officers and men in the Army. Some Members made the suggestion that it should be 5s. a day and others 35s. a

week, but as the Debate progressed, it was clear that the feeling in the House, broadly speaking, was that officers and men in the Army are not paid sufficient.
Do I understand that the Government are prepared to go into the matter, with no limitations, to discuss whether the pay and allowances of officers and men in the Army shall be increased? That is the assurance that the House should get, and if the House is prepared to part with the Amendment, without that assurance, it will be letting down the officers and men in the Army. The ancient foundation of Parliamentary procedure is "No Supply without redress of grievances." The speeches have shown that the officers and men in His Majesty's Army have a grievance, and we have no right to vote Supply until that grievance has been redressed or until we have some authoritative assurance from the Front Bench that the grievance will be considered fairly and openly, without any limitations and a decision come to expeditiously.
The Army never had a better friend than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. He has been the best friend that the Army has had since I have sat in the House of Commons, and I was sorry for him when he had to stand at that Box and speak from the Treasury brief. To suggest that you cannot increase the pay, because of the fear of inflation, is to mislead not only the House but public opinion outside. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, this is not a charge which is going to remain after the war but only a charge during the war. A Member of the Government recently made a statement at a by-election that the Government were going to "out-Beveridge Beveridge." Whether that is right or wrong, the first thing they have to do is to pay officers and men in the Forces properly, while the war is on. If we can be given an assurance by the Leader of the House that what he said meant that there shall be a prompt discussion of the case for raising the basic pay, and also for increasing the allowances, then I for one would be satisfied. Unless I can have that categorical assurance, in plain words, I consider that we should go to a Division.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has said most of the things I wish to say and said them a good deal


better than I could, but there are two things that I would add. The Government have not shown up very well during this Debate. It is obvious and beyond question, that when the Secretary of State for War stood at that Box, he meant what he said, namely that they were standing pat and except for special hardship cases, which would be dealt with under ordinary service grants machinery, there was nothing doing and nothing was going to be done. Afterwards the Leader of the House got up and made a great advance on what the Secretary of State for War had promised. I want to join with the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom in asking that the Leader of the House should give the definite assurance to which the House is entitled. It is a strange and queer thing that we have debated these questions at intervals a number of times since the war began.
The Government knew that this Amendment was on the Order Paper. They had the Debate 18 months ago to go by, and yet they came here and, in the words of the Secretary of State for War, indicated that they were unaware of any hardship whatever, but that if hardships could be brought forward they would be willing to consider them. I think all that verges on sharp practice, and the House would be untrue to itself, and to the trust reposed in it by the Armed Forces of the Crown, if they allowed the Government to get away with that quite so easily as apparently they think they can. Therefore, I hope that we may get from the Leader of the House to-night a definite assurance that what he said meant this, that nothing would be ruled out, that they would be willing to consider both an increase in the basic pay, and also an increase in the allowances for children. If he can give us that assurance, the Debate may end in a very different way from the way it might otherwise.

Mr. Loverseed: I do not intend to keep the House for more than about three minutes. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, frankly, as an ex-Serviceman, disgusted me. I only wish that the men of the 8th Army could have been present in this House to hear his statement. I doubt whether he would have survived it. The impression given was that even taking the gross figure of £200,000,000 per year which a flat increase would necessitate, it

would have landed this country in bankruptcy, that the whole financial structure of the nation would have crashed around us. Even on that figure, I could suggest many ways in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite could find that £200,000,000. One way would be by "collaring" some of the money which is being dodged in E.P.T. Having said that, I only hope that this House will show to-night very firmly that it has a conscience, and that it is determined to fulfil its role as the custodian of the future of the men who are serving in the Forces to-day.

Major Manninģham-Buller: I would like to say a few words, if I can add anything to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) to induce the Government to reconsider this matter de nova. I must admit that I did not understand the observations of the Secretary of State for War with regard to pay. I thought he said quite clearly that the soldier's pay remaining at its present level was the rock on which the whole of our financial structure was based. I may have misunderstood him, but if he did say that, it does not seem compatible with what the Leader of the House said subsequently. Having had some experience in the Army, and having seen, in many instances, young officers lose their commissions because they did not meet their commitments through circumstances which were really beyond their control, I would ask the Government, with all the force that I can, to consider whether they really cannot go into this question of pay and allowances fully, promptly, and with the utmost vigour. The whole system seems to me to be entirely archaic, with large bodies of people engaged in working out whether an officer is entitled to 31 days' or 20 days' fuel and light allowance. If it is a question of spending £185,000,000 or £150,000,000 on a medical, comprehensive service, if it is a question of spending vast sums on Beveridge, I think the Service man has priority.

Mr. Eden: I can only speak for a moment in response to my hon. and gallant Friend's appeal, and only with the permission of the House. I shall only delay it one minute to try again to make plain what I thought I had made plain before. There were two, as we thought, principles put forward—

Mr. Bellenģer: They were illustrations

Mr. Eden: Well, they were illustrations. But I only want to make the Government's position clear on them. The Government position is that we do not accept these principles. We reject them either as illustrations or as principles. Provided it be understood that we cannot make any commitment in advance, nothing is barred from the discussion, neither rates of pay nor allowances, nor anything else.

Mr. A. Greenwood: Is the Amendment acceptable?

Mr. Eden: No.

Mr. Greenwood: If my right hon. Friend says that it is the Government's view that the two principles or illustrations are not accepted by them and that all questions are open for discussion does not that mean that the Amendment is acceptable? I am not trying to make trouble about this, but I am sure that it is the wish of the House that apart from principles or illustrations this House, or its representatives, would like to discuss with the Government the whole question of pay and allowances. The Government are not committed to accepting anything; all I am asking them is whether the problem would not be settled by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. A. Bevan: The Leader of the House is suffering from an unusual quality for the Front Bench—an excess of honesty. It is the first time I have seen it for many years. What we want to know is this: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment before the House?

Mr. Eden: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman rejects the Amendment. The Amendment contains two principles, and I wish Members would not try to dodge them. One is that there should be an immediate increase in pay and allowances. Every speech made from that side of the House or this has been in favour of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made a speech which has not been answered. The Government have no excuse whatever for not answering it because they knew that all this would arise. It was well known that this issue would be raised. When the Government say that they are prepared to discuss everything but that they reject these two

principles in the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that is what the Leader of the House said.

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. The hon. Member is an old Parliamentary hand. Is it not a fact that the Government cannot accept the Amendment? It must be either negatived or withdrawn. It cannot be accepted.

Mr. Bevan: That is a flimsy pretext—

Mr. Speaker: If the Amendment is accepted I cannot be moved out of the Chair. The Government can, of course always accept the principle of it.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly. I have been held up on a flimsy pretext. The Government can accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bull: The hon. Member so seldom speaks anyhow.

Mr. Bevan: The difficulty is that the serving soldier cannot sympathise with the hon. Member's funniosities. We are discussing whether after 4½ years of war we can give the serving soldier a square deal. The Government say they cannot accept the two principles contained in file Amendment. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member had been here, he would have found it easier to follow. I explained the two principles which we thought were put forward in support of the Amendment and I said we rejected those principles. Of course the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: There are two principles in the Amendment, an immediate increase in pay and allowances, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept it. There is only one thing left, to divide the House. If hon. Members opposite want to dodge, they can select any kind of speech they like. All that is before the House is an Amendment to the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." The Amendment asks that before he leaves the Chair, the Government should give an assurance of an immediate increase in pay and allowances. If the Government say they cannot accept that my hon. Friends should divide, because we have no other justification for the Debate. The Foreign Secretary says he is prepared to have an inquiry to discuss everything. What is everything? Everything except


pay and allowances? That is the issue before the House. We are having the same thing year after year. The Government knew this issue was going to be raised and they are trying to find some way of avoiding coming to an issue on it. My advice to my hon. Friends is to put Members to the obligation of going into the Lobby and show exactly where they stand and not fall back upon the ambiguity of speeches made in the Debate.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I feel, having listened to all the Debate, that there are certain things which are perfectly obvious. There has not been a single Member on this side who is not quite determined that the present position of the soldier is unsatisfactory. Secondly, we are quite determined that it is our obligation, which we cannot escape, that there is no one else to look after the Service man except this House. I believe all Members, including the Government, have an equal responsibility. There is now this confusion, which should never have arisen, and it would be disastrous at this stage of the war if it went out that there had been a Division which showed that the Government were not willing to support the troops. That I do not believe. I know from what the Secretary of State said that he is anxious to see everything done to maintain the morale of the Army and to make the men happy about conditions at home. Every day the welfare officer is overloaded with divorce cases and troubles and difficulties at home, and this is piling up immediately before we have the general offensive.
This is one of those few occasions which arise in the House when the House must give itself a lead if the Government do not make it sufficiently clear. The Leader of the House used an unfortunate word in "principles." Nobody has talked about principles. We want to make it clear that we do not want to press the Government for anything that is unreasonable. There have been many things said to-day which make it doubtful whether we could justify a case for the man in the Army without dependants being entitled to a flat rate increase. I believe there is an overwhelming case for married soldiers having up to 15s. minimum children's allowance. I believe there is a feeling of strong frustration among the junior ranks in the Army and a feeling that they have been cheated over field allowance.

Because the Government put a poker, a table and a form in a room, the officer finds himself with so much less a week. Whatever may be the rights of it, he has a feeling that somebody is cheating. Our business is to see that that feeling is removed.
I believe that the Government and the Secretary of State are as anxious as any hon. Member to clean this thing up. I feel that we must get from the Leader of the House, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), a clear statement that if Members are to meet the Government in a representative capacity there must be no limits to the discussion. It must be a free discussion without limits. We are not unreasonable people. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that a flat rate increase will cost £150,000,000, people will say that that is not so important as getting the allowances and the other things we want. I shall certainly go into the Lobby with great regret against the Government because this is an occasion when I think that the one thing that matters is that the House should act as trustees for the men in the Forces who are called upon to take action on the orders of the Government and who we know in our constituencies are feeling extremely uncomfortable that they have not friends when they need them.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I support what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). The House cannot leave the position where it now is on the statements that have been made from the Front Bench. The Armed Forces of this country are not allowed—I think wrongly—to have trade unions or to have conciliation machinery, or the right of taking their differences to arbitration. In the light of these denials it is this House that must make up its mind how the Armed Forces are to be dealt with. I should have hoped that the Government would have made a statement to-day which would have enabled the House to discharge its task relatively easily. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) raised this issue with a view to getting publicity or credit to himself, and I do not believe those who supported him on the other side are any more concerned about that than he is. I believe


this is one of the rare occasions when the House functions without a sense of partisanship but with the conception of trusteeship.
The Government must either accept unrestricted discussion, with nothing barred, or must tell us what they will accept. The House wants to get the right thing done. If the Leader of the House, or the Chancellor—the silent sinner in this business—would get up and say that the Government were prepared to rest on the good sense of all parties in the House and remit the matter to discussion between the Government and representatives of all parties, with nothing barred, we might hope for agreement. If the Government stay where they now stand, and bar new principles against which they have not made a case, there will not be agreement. Are we to believe that, with a war expenditure of £5,000,000,000, the sum of £200,000,000 represents the dividing line between inflation and no inflation? Nonsense. If the industrial comparison is rejected, at least we are entitled to a reason. I would remind the Leader of the House that if he will not learn from this House, perhaps he will learn something from the Germans. Ludendorff expressed the conviction in his Memoirs of the last war that, among the reasons which led to the breakdown of German morale, the principal was the sense of outrage amongst the Army at their unfavourable treatment compared with that of the civil population. He might also learn from Himmler, that Hitler, as a preliminary to waging this war, decided that the same reason for moral collapse should not occur this time.
I do not want any unnecessary explosive material lying about at the end of the war. This is not a proposal that we should arrest the Chancellor under 18B and intern him, but that we should meet genuine grievances before the event, and not let them poison the post-war situation. I am not anxious to vote against the Government. I would prefer to see this matter taken right out of party controversy, and be determined by the good sense of the House, but if the right hon. Gentleman will not agree, then no one will go into the Division Lobby with a better heart than I will.

Major Nield: Every speech in this Debate was in sympathy with the

Amendment. From that it should be plain that it is the country's view that existing conditions of pay and allowances are not adequate. The question I ask is, Why cannot H.M. Government respond to that unanimous feeling? My second point is this: If it is a question of money, then I feel it is right to say that if one were able to ask the public, who in the end have to foot the bill, to shoulder the extra cost of additional provision for our fighting men who are rendering services greater than any other, their answer would be, "Aye, and gladly." My third point is this: It is rather a personal one, but I have no hesitation in putting it forward. One has some experience of meeting troops here and elsewhere. If to-day I have to choose my loyalties I shall choose the troops.

Dr. Haden Guest: I have scrapped anything I had intended to say had I been able to speak earlier, but I do feel obliged to protest against the attitude of the Government on this matter. This is the grand occasion in the year for discussing War Office affairs. The War Office knew perfectly well that this matter was coming up, and they are practically dishonestly attempting to evade these problems. It was their bounden duty to have brought forward a considered reply with regard to the representations on pay and allowances, and in fact they could have done it. There have been, I know, inquiries made; there are facts available, and I consider that the Secretary of State for War is guilty of a dereliction of duty in not bringing a definite statement before the House. It is the whole country, not only the House of Commons, that is behind this demand for an improvement in pay and allowances. Vast masses of people in the country are behind it.
I recently had the honour of taking a chair at a meeting of the wives and dependants of Service men which represented a vast area of London. There were over 600 delegates sent from organisations. They were strongly behind this. They were moderate in their demands, they were constitutional in their demands. For the Secretary of State for War to come to the House on this occasion, when it is his duty to answer demands of this kind, and have no answer to give except what amounts to a flat refusal seems to me to make it imperative that unless the Gov-


ernment now change their mind, unless the Leader of the House now throws over the Secretary of State for War and makes a conciliatory statement, it is up to the House to register its opinion of strong disapproval in the Division Lobby. This is not the way to bring the second front well forward, to treat the wives and dependants of Service men in this way.
I will give only one fact from those I had intended to give. There are thousands of cases in this country of malnutrition of children because wives do not get enough money. I think under these circumstances that unless the Leader of the House will give an assurance very different from what he has already given the House should go into the Lobby against the Government.

Mr. Molson: I was privileged to take part in the discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about 15 months ago when Service Members in this House made representations to him with regard to allowances and specially hard cases. Hon. Members who have spoken to-day would not have bandied about charges of bad faith or of lack of consideration if they had had the experience that my colleagues and I had on that occasion of the careful investigations of the Chancellor and the then Lord Privy Seal, now Minister of Aircraft Production, and the great care with which they went into these cases. I have listened with the most careful attention to what was said by the Leader of the House, and I should have thought that, if English words have any meaning, it was perfectly plain that the same kind of inquiry was going to be held on this occasion as was held on the previous occasion.

Mr. Reakes: With the same possible results.

Mr. Molson: Actually, the results were regarded as satisfactory, not only by the hon. Members who took part in those discussions but by the House itself, at that time. The total amount, if my memory serves me rightly, was something like £50,000,000.
There have been two entirely different lines of argument in this House to-day. Certain Members who have said that there has been unanimity in support of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) are mistaken. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Ber-

nays), whose speech, I think, made so great an impression on the House, drew a clear distinction between those cases of married soldiers and those without dependants, and he brought chapter and verse; and the Leader of the House told us that he was prepared to investigate those particular circumstances. That is entirely different from the claim that there should be a general rise in basic rates. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bristol took the view that there is a number of hard cases, especially those who are married and have dependants. I agree with him, and I know some of my hon. Friends do also; I notice that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) took the same view.
It is not reasonable of hon. Members to expect the Government, at a moment's notice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some hon. Members opposite would have been the first to complain if the Government had come here with some cut-and-dried plan before they had heard the case. The constitutional principle is that the Government hear the complaints that are made by hon. Members, and consider afterwards what they are able to do.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, I am sure, correct me if I am wrong, but what I thought I heard him say was that, while they are not prepared to accept the criterion of Dominion or American pay as necessarily applicable to our own troops—and why should the House of Commons assume that we are prepared to accept the levels of pay of some other Legislature?—and while they are not prepared to accept the vague principle, which can hardly be defined, that the rates of all in the Armed Forces should be brought into line with all the gradations of pay in industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is manifestly impossible to say what is the level of industrial pay. Some is based on piece rates, and some on time rates. If I understood my right hon. Friend aright, it is an undertaking that the Government are prepared to investigate this matter, to hear everything that can be brought forward by hon. Members urging that there are adjustments to be made. There was a number of Members of this House who considered, on the last occasion, that it was a mistake to have a flat basic rise in pay of 6d. a day.
There were some who did not stand in need of that sixpence, and many more,


especially those who were married and with children, who were in need of something far more. I trust the House will be satisfied with the promise which the Government have given to investigate this matter, and, if the result is satisfactory, as it was on the last occasion, I do not think the House will have any reason to regret it.

Mr. Kendall: May I ask the Leader of the House a question? I have listened to the statements of the Secretary of State for War and the Leader of the House, and I would like to know—not being at all satisfied with the answers, though, maybe, I have not interpreted them properly—if the Government agree that the pay, family allowances and children's allowances are inadequate. I want to know that now, and, if that be so, and they agree that they are inadequate, then, what do they propose to do, and when do they propose to do it? That is all I want to know.

Mr. Eden: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I apologise for intervening so frequently, but I will try just once more to make myself absolutely plain. [Interruption.]

Major C. S. Taylor: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to answer all the questions. If he cannot answer them all, will he please answer one which I would like to put to him? The Government have said they are prepared to negotiate on the question of pay and allowances, and are perfectly prepared to hear arguments put forward. If they have made up their minds what they are going to do, shall we then have an opportunity in this House of showing our favour or disfavour?

Mr. Eden: I really think I can put the position in three sentences. First of all, as I have said, there are what I consider two principles mentioned in this Debate. So that there should be no misunderstanding, we do not accept, and cannot accept, the principle that changes are made on the basis of a comparison with the Dominions or the United States or on the industrial level. That is the first thing. This is so that the House may know what the Government's sentiments are before we take a decision. The second thing is that we are prepared to go into a discus-

sion of pay and allowances, hardships and all matters, without commitment, of course, by the Government, as we did the last time. Two years ago, we had exactly the same procedure, and I must remind the House that it unanimously accepted the result, and it is not fair to suggest that it was a bogus show. The whole House accepted that result. We are willing to follow exactly the same procedure and discuss all these questions. Finally, I wish to make it absolutely plain that the position is, of course, that when these discussions reach a result, if they do, as I hope they will, we will come back to the House, and it will be for the House to approve them or not.

Mr. Kendall: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to him? Do the Government agree that pay and allowances, and children's allowances, are inadequate, and, if so, what will they do about it?

Mr. Eden: I really have given the House an absolutely fair answer. Clearly, I said we would go into discussions without commitments. Clearly, the Government would not embark on discussions of this kind if they did not realise that there were important reservations to be made

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Huģh Lawson: The Secretary of State for War has told us the principles he rejects, but he has not said the principles he accepts. I am putting just this one question. Does he agree that there should be a fair distribution of such consumable goods as we have in this country between all sections of the country? Is he satisfied that the Service men are getting their fair share?
That is the only point at issue. Nobody has suggested that we are asking for inflation at all. Will the Secretary of State for War say whether he will accept the suggestion as a basis for consideration? We think that we have made out a very strong case that both pay and allowances are too small. I add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), who asked whether the Government accept the claim that we have made out a case for an increase. We are not asking them to say what that increase should be, as obviously there would have to be discussion on that matter.

Mr. Driberģ: Like other hon. Members I shall be very brief, but I do not think that anybody need apologise for speaking and keeping the House at this hour. Apart from the merits of the case, it is an excellent thing that it should go out to the soldiers that Parliament is working overtime to-day and has sat later than on any other day for many months on a matter which affects every soldier intimately. The Leader of the House has made the position clear, with complete courtesy and clarity: that there are to be discussions, with no commitments—discussions which should, and might, have been taking place for months or weeks past—and that the Government are going to approach those discussions with a fixed prejudice against the only possible basis for them. The only possible basis for discussion is contained in this Amendment. The Government have rejected the Amendment. But if there is no urgent need for an immediate increase in pay, there is obviously no need for the discussion at all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was, I think, the only Member of the House who used the comparison with industry in at all an improper way. He made a quite extraordinary statement which boiled down to this—that, because the agricultural worker is paid disgracefully low wages, therefore we ought to pay the soldier disgracefully low wages also. As to his argument with regard to inflation, can it seriously be suggested, as he did, that the raising of the basic pay of the soldier to, say, 5s, a day would necessarily start a general demand for wage increases among civilian industrial workers? If that is suggested, it is quite a ridiculous suggestion. Nobody would claim that the wages of the industrial worker must be raised to keep always ahead of the soldier's pay. Nothing could be more ridiculous.
Hon. Members by their action in this Division, which perhaps in many ways will be the most crucial of all that are likely to take place in this Parliamentary Session, will show their constituents precisely where they stand. Their constituents will be able to judge whether they truly represent the interests of the common people—whose spearhead and shield, whose salvation, and whose glory at this moment is the common soldier.

Sir Irvinģ Albery: In view of the speech which has just been made, there are a few words I wish to say before we go to a Division. The Amendment which was moved to-day to bring forward the grievances of men in the Forces was supposed to be moved, and apparently was moved, with the idea of getting the Government to agree to consider their case with the ultimate object of taking some action. I have listened to practically the whole of the Debate to-day and I must say, quite definitely, that the offer which the Government have made, except for splitting hairs, is a very complete offer—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense"]—to consider the grievances which have been brought to their notice. The fact that, when they have considered them, any decision which they take is then subsequently to be submitted to this House, gives this House eventually a further opportunity of saying whether they approve of the decision which the Government will have taken when that decision is submitted. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Amendment which you will put will be the Amendment on the Order Paper and, under the circumstances, I shall declare quite clearly, for myself, that in supporting the Government, which I shall do, I do not imply that I am satisfied with the present pay and allowances of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Mander: We know that there have recently come into this House a number of hon. Members, particularly on the other side, who are among the most loyal and reliable supporters the Government could possibly have, and we have watched with interest the little meeting that has been held to decide whether actually they would support the Government or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "The 42 Club."] But I do feel that while there is a good deal of difference of opinion in the House on this question, there are some hon. Members who are quite as much interested in damaging the Government as the other side of the question. That is perfectly clear. There are perfectly sincere and determined opponents of the Government in this House, and they are making the most of their opportunity to-night.

Mr. A. Bevan: Good old P.P.S.

Mr. Mander: I am a free man, entitled to say what I think. Now, Sir, I have


not listened to the whole of this Debate, but I have heard enough of it to make me realise that the House of Commons has secured a victory over the Government. The Government came here with certain ideas and views as to how they would speak on this question of pay and allowances, and they found the House did not agree. One after the other has arisen from every side, and I entirely associate myself with the views that have been unanimously expressed urging the Government to alter their point-of-view, to be more generous, to consider making concessions—

Mr. Loverseed: What is the hon. Member going to do about it?

Mr. Mander: If my hon. Friend will be patient, he will hear. I heard the Leader of the House on four or five, if not six, occasions to-day describe exactly what the Government's position was. He has made it perfectly clear, so far as words have any meaning, that the Government are prepared to consider the whole question of pay and allowances without any restrictions at all. It is perfectly true that he used certain words such as "not accepting certain principles," but that was only a little camouflage to cover up the fact that he was, in fact, making considerable concessions to the House. I think the Government have reacted to the House of Commons in an entirely proper, constitutional way. They have listened to

Division No. 5.
AYES.



Albery, Sir Irving
Furness, Major S. N.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Pym, L. R.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Beaumont, Maj. Hon. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Rankin, Sir R.


Beech, Major F. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Beechman, N. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Storey, S.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.


Conant, Major R. J. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Drewe, C.
Mander, G. le M.
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Eccles, D. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Molson, A. H. E.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)



Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Mr. Boulton and Mr. A. S. L. Young.

the arguments put forward, they have adjusted and altered their point of view as time has passed, and I think we can claim that it will be impossible for the Government, after to-day's Debate, to do other than make such concessions as prove, in the course of the discussion amongst those interested, to be wise and practicable.

Personally, as one who is not at all ashamed to say that he is a supporter of a Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "Guilty men of Westminster"]—which is well fitted to carry on the task of winning this war, I think we can trust them to do what is wanted by the House.

Mr. S. O. Davies: After the last two speeches we have heard we should try to make the situation perfectly clear. These speeches impressed me as being deliberately intended to obscure the position and attitude of the Government. The real position is this: The Government have not accepted the Amendment. They have refused to admit that the pay and allowances of soldiers are inadequate. All we have had is a vague promise to consider these matters without a committal to a single principle. It was necessary to make this clear before we divided.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 40.

NOES.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Dunn, E.
Mack, J. D.


Bellenger, F. J.
Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Foster, W.
Nield, Major B. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Ritson, J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'der's)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Stokes, R. R.


Buchanan, G.
Guy, W. H.
Suirdale, Viscount


Bull, B. B.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Burke, W. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Lipson, D. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Loverseed, J. E.



Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Lyons, Major A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—




Mr. Kendall and Mr. Reakes.

Question, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Resolved:
That such number of Land Forces of all ranks, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

PAY, &C, OF THE ARMY

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &amp;c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

TERRITORIAL ARMY AND RESERVE FORCES

"That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Territorial Army, Training Corps, Home Guard, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1943

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding.



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c., of the Army
10
110,000,000

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Tiverton, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th February, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]